computer.restore_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the core behavior: restoring a minimized or maximized window. However, it does not disclose what happens if the window is already in a normal state, whether focus changes, or how invalid window references are handled, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It earns a high conciseness score, though not a perfect one because a short clarifying clause about expected state could have been added without harming readability.

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 with no output schema, the description is close to minimal, but it is not complete enough: the parameter semantics are entirely absent and there is no annotation safety or usage context. An agent would know the intent but not enough details to invoke it reliably.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the required 'window' parameter. It does not explain what identifier or format is expected (title, ID, handle, etc.), leaving the agent guessing how to populate the parameter.

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 clearly identifies the operation ('restore') and the resource ('window'), and it is naturally set apart from sibling tools like minimize_window and maximize_window by naming the opposite action. It loses a point because 'restore' is not fully disambiguated: it covers both minimized and maximized windows without specifying the resulting state.

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 implies the usage condition: call it when a window is minimized or maximized and needs to be restored. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use focus_window instead), so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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