hypr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that operations are instant, that move_window is silent, that dpms_on/off changes display power, and that then appends output to the same call. It also flags a concrete downstream failure mode (screenshot/desktop on a dark display), which is valuable transparency beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every subsequent phrase adds semantic value. The pipe-separated action list is dense but compact, containing no filler or repetition. It packs a complete operational spec into a few lines.

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?

Despite no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the description gives a complete operating picture: actions, parameter meanings, optionality, chaining behavior, and a cross-tool caveat. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 define the parameters, and it does thoroughly. It enumerates valid action values, specifies workspace as number/name/'special:name', marks target as an address with optional usage where relevant, and explains the then options and their effect. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

The description opens by naming the resource (window/workspace) and mechanism (IPC, instant, no vision), then enumerates each supported action with its arguments. This makes the tool's scope immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from visual/graphical siblings like screenshot and desktop.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: fast window/workspace operations over IPC without vision, and it explicitly warns that dpms_off makes screenshots/desktop fail on a dark display. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives with a 'use X instead' formula, but the guidance is strong enough.

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