hyprland-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it explains the two mode behaviors ('fullscreen' vs 'maximize'), it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens if no active window exists. For a window manipulation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the parameter semantics. However, the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the parameter explanation rather than placing it in a separate 'Args:' section.

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 moderate complexity (window manipulation), no annotations, 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and parameter meanings, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about permissions, errors, or side effects that the output schema might not cover.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'mode' parameter's two possible values and their semantic differences ('real fullscreen' vs 'maximized (keeps bar)'). This adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't cover edge cases or validation rules.

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 states the specific action ('toggle fullscreen') and target resource ('active window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'resize_window' or 'maximize_window' (which doesn't exist). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context through 'active window' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resize_window' or 'maximize' (if available). It provides some guidance through parameter descriptions but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives for similar functionality.

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