windows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that 'close' is destructive and that 'focus' changes window focus, but it does not describe return formats, side effects of focusing, or whether closing requires confirmation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists all supported operations with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool, the description is reasonably complete, but missing details like default action behavior, return value shape, and parameter requirements by action leave gaps. The absence of an output schema and annotations raises the burden on the description, which it only partially meets.

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. It adds meaning by mapping action values to list/focus/close and implying window_id identifies the window, but it does not clarify that window_id is required for focus/close or ignored for list.

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 specific operations (list, focus, close) on a specific resource (browser windows), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tabs' tool by explicitly mentioning windows.

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?

Usage is implied by the action verbs: use when you need to list, focus, or close browser windows. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like 'tabs' are given, so the guidance is adequate but not thorough.

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