Restore window layout

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: OS-version-gated Space movement with a documented fallback (positions restored, Space unchanged), skipped windows for unopened apps, and a reported count. The notable omission is that macOS window manipulation typically requires Accessibility/automation permission, which is never mentioned.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then version caveats, then edge-case routing, then feedback. No sentence is filler and the sibling reference is placed exactly where the exclusion is stated.

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 zero-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, it covers side effects (Space + position changes), platform limits, skipped windows, and a human-visible result count. The remaining gap is the implicit permission/accessibility requirement and whether partial failure is possible mid-restore.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no parameter meaning is missing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Move open windows back to the Spaces and positions') and ties it to its counterpart save_window_layout, so the agent can distinguish it from save_window_layout and the session tools without opening a schema.

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?

It names the recorded-layout prerequisite (save_window_layout or Spacepal's automatic save), an explicit exclusion ('apps that are not open are skipped'), and routes the reopen-app case to the sibling restore_sessions. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and an alternative all in one paragraph.

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