setup

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

The description discloses two behavioral modes (preview vs. write) and their triggers, which is helpful. However, since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden but doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing config or whether preview is read-only.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy or excessive detail.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main usage modes and what to expect from each. It doesn't mention the exact output format or edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently 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 already describes the allowlist parameter fully (100% coverage), and the description adds meaning by explicitly connecting the parameter to the write action ('with an allowlist to write the config'). This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 purpose with specific verbs: 'preview open windows' and 'create an allowlist config.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capture or list_windows by focusing on configuration setup rather than capture or listing actions.

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?

It explains exactly when to call without parameters ('to preview') and when to call with an allowlist ('to write the config'). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, it provides clear context for usage.

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