glass_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only names operations and does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether focus steals focus, if move is relative or absolute), return values, error behavior, or any special requirements. The phrase 'read its geometry' is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the operations. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 tool with multiple operations, five parameters, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what 'geometry' returns, what the effect of 'focus' is, or any dependencies between operations. The schema covers parameters, but the tool's behavioral context is largely missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including when they are required and ignored. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Focus/resize/move the window or read its geometry.' It names specific operations and a resource (window). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like glass_move, which may be a dedicated move operation, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as glass_move, glass_select_window, or glass_list_windows. It merely lists operations without specifying contexts or exclusions.

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