tile_windows

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

With no annotations, the description bears full disclosure burden. It mentions default behavior for app_names ('defaults to visible windows') and return format (JSON string with window metadata or error), but does not cover other traits like permission requirements, handling of invalid inputs, or interaction with display configurations.

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?

Description is concise, with a clear purpose statement, structured Args section, and Returns note. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers all parameters and return behavior adequately. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema structure, it could mention edge cases (e.g., invalid layout string handling) to be fully complete.

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?

All four parameters have meaningful descriptions in the Args section despite zero schema coverage. Layout gets valid values ('columns, rows, or grid'), padding's purpose ('Gap around and between windows'), and display_index clarified as '1-based'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'tile' and resource 'multiple macOS windows on a display'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'move_window' and 'resize_window' by specifying a distinct operation (arranging multiple windows in a layout).

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?

No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons to siblings like 'center_window' or 'focus_window'.

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