computer.maximize_window

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the action (maximize) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the window is brought to front), failure behavior if the window is not found, or whether the tool is idempotent. This is a notable gap for a state-changing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the key parameter semantics. It is concise, though it sacrifices behavioral detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate: it names the action and how to identify the target window. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without information on success/failure signals, error conditions, or any return value, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by title/application' gives partial meaning to the `window` parameter beyond 'string,' but it is ambiguous whether it matches partial strings, is case-sensitive, or which format is preferred. Some value is added, but not enough for full clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Maximize') and resource ('a window'), and adds the identification mechanism 'by title/application,' making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_active_window or click, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of preconditions such as the window existing or being on screen. The agent must infer usage from the single sentence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.