glass_select_window

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals a key behavioral trait: selecting a window redirects subsequent operations and changes the coordinate system. The schema description also warns that ids are not stable across calls, which is important operational behavior. This adds real value beyond the annotation flags.

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 compact and efficient: one sentence that states the action, the id source, and the consequential effect on later operations. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to pass, where to get it, and what side effects to expect on future calls. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 already covers the only parameter fully, describing it as a window id from glass_list_windows and noting instability. The main description merely repeats 'by id (from glass_list_windows)', adding no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Make a window active') and resource ('window'), and immediately identifies the source of the id ('from glass_list_windows'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like glass_list_windows, glass_screenshot, or glass_click by explaining that it sets the target for subsequent operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: before screenshot/click/type/window operations, since those will target the selected window and interpret coordinates relative to it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage pattern is strongly implied and reinforced by the schema's note about re-listing rather than caching ids.

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