resize_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the -1 keep-current behavior and the no-move guarantee. However, it omits potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral transparency 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 succinct and well-structured, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and then providing parameter details. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 is simple, and the description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavior. The -1 semantics are explained. It does not discuss return values, but an output schema exists. Minor gaps like error handling could be added, but overall it's quite 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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the description provides the only semantics. It clearly explains hwnd as the window handle and width/height as pixel values with -1 meaning keep current, fully compensating for zero schema coverage.

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 action (resize), the resource (window), and a key constraint (without moving it), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_window and set_window_state. It is immediately clear 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 for resizing windows but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like move_window or set_window_state. There is no exclusion guidance, so it falls at the implied level.

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