set_window_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the allowed states but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens when hiding a window), whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse. No fluff or redundancy.

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 with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the essential inputs adequately. However, it omits behavioral details such as error handling, idempotency, or whether the state change is persistent, which are not covered by annotations or the output schema. This makes it merely adequate, not comprehensive.

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?

Even though the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), the tool description explains both parameters: hwnd is 'The window handle (from list_windows)' and state is an enum listing all valid values. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds practical guidance on how to obtain the hwnd.

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 tool's function: 'Change a window's display state' with examples (minimize, maximize, restore). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_window, resize_window, focus_window, and close_window, which handle different aspects of window management.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the hwnd should come from list_windows, but there is no mention of when to choose this over focus_window, move_window, or close_window. The task's context signals list siblings, but the description itself does not address selection criteria.

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