computer.minimize_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 only states the action and target, but does not disclose what happens if the window is already minimized, if no matching window is found, whether exact title matching is required, or whether minimizing by application affects all windows of that app. These are important behaviors for the agent to predict the outcome.

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 one short sentence with no redundant words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could have used the extra space to add behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of guidance. While the operation is simple, the description omits critical matching and failure behavior and provides no context about how it relates to sibling window-management tools. A few more details would make it complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema provides only a parameter name 'window' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that the parameter can be a title or application, but it does not specify matching semantics, casing sensitivity, or how to disambiguate multiple matches. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 ('Minimize') and resource ('a window'), with a qualifier ('by title/application') that distinguishes it from related window actions like maximize, restore, and close. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, and 'application' is slightly ambiguous as to whether it means an app name or all windows of an app.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like focus_window, restore_window, or close_window. The context of wanting to minimize is implied but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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