get_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the important cross-call invariant that all object IDs are profile-local and must never be reused in another profile. That is non-obvious, high-value context beyond the schema. It stops short of confirming read-only semantics or stating error behavior for an unknown window_id.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the constraint. Every sentence earns its place, though the profile-scoping sentence reads as boilerplate likely repeated across every tool in this server.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature of a 'get' is clear. The remaining gap is what happens on an invalid or cross-profile window_id, which is a minor omission for a simple retrieve operation.

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 coverage is 67%: window_id and populate are already documented in the schema, while profile_id has no inline description. The description compensates for exactly that gap by telling the agent where profile_id comes from. It adds nothing about the populate default or the effect of disabling tab information, so it stays at baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get information about a specific window"), which an agent can distinguish from list_windows (all windows) and get_current_window (focused window) by inference. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 supplies a real prerequisite ("obtain profile_id from profiles_list"), which is genuine usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer this over list_windows or get_current_window, and no exclusions or failure conditions are given.

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