vent_windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the valuable detail that it 'auto-wakes if asleep', which informs the agent about a side effect. However, it does not mention potential impacts like the need for authentication, whether the command is asynchronous, or any risks of ventilating windows. It gives some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and an important behavioral trait in just eight words. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the core action and auto-wake behavior, which is the most critical context. However, it does not clarify what the tool returns or when it might fail, and it lacks any mention of the optional parameters. It is not severely incomplete, but it could do more to set expectations.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters themselves—it does not explain how 'max_attempts' or 'wait_for_completion' affect the behavior. Since the schema already documents them, this is sufficient, but no additional value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'Vents' with a clear resource 'all windows' and degree 'slightly open', making the action unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like close_windows and vent_sunroof, as the name and description clearly target window venting. The auto-wake note adds a distinct behavior that separates it from other window commands.

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 usage is implied through the action word 'Vents' — an agent can infer it should be used when venting windows is desired. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like vent_sunroof, nor any exclusion criteria. It lacks the explicit 'use X instead' pattern that would merit a higher score.

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