display_manage

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 does state what each operation reads or modifies, including allowed values and defaults (e.g. set_mode window modes, VSync modes, mouse modes). It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or platform constraints for these mutating display/window operations, which is a notable gap for an unannotated configuration tool.

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 well structured: a brief header, a compact bulleted op list with signatures and defaults, and a short canonical-call note. Every line is informative and earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a multi-operation tool with an output schema and minimal input schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers all six operations, their parameters, and the expected call envelope. It does not explain error conditions or clarify relationships to sibling tools, but the provided output schema removes the need to describe return values in detail.

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 input schema gives almost no parameter semantics: params is a free-form object with 0% schema coverage. The description fully compensates by documenting every operation's sub-parameters, defaults, and accepted enum values, along with the canonical call shape. This is exactly the kind of semantic detail the schema is missing.

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 with a clear resource scope ('DisplayServer Configuration, Window Controls, and SubWindow Scaffolding') and enumerates six concrete operations, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is less explicit about how it differs from closely related siblings like viewport_manage or rendering_manage, so it loses one point.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through the op list: an agent can infer that window/display configuration goes here and subwindow scaffolding also goes here. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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