center_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains centering behavior, optional resizing before centering, and return value. However, it omits edge cases like what happens when multiple selection params are provided (e.g., window_id vs. app_name) or precise error conditions.

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 concise (two sentences plus bullet-like list) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers each parameter and the return format. It is nearly complete, but a note on selection precedence when multiple window identifiers are given would elevate it.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations add significant value, specifying the meaning of each field (e.g., app_name can be name, bundle id, or process name). However, it lacks clarity on how parameters interact (e.g., selection priority).

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 verb 'center' and the resource 'macOS window', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_window' (move without centering) and 'resize_window' (resizing only). The action is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'move_window' or 'resize_window'. It lists parameters but does not explain conditions for choosing this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer.

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