tile_windows

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

The description discloses important behavioral nuances beyond the annotations, such as 'Maximized windows are restored first, since maximized ignores bounds' and the prerequisite that at least one target must have a scriptable tab. These details inform the agent about side effects and conditions, complementing the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) without contradicting them.

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, using two sentences to convey purpose, scope, and behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Tile Chrome windows over one monitor in equal parts with no gap') and then efficiently covers constraints and edge cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested object, enums) and the rich schema descriptions, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose, scope, prerequisites, and a key behavioral quirk. It does not mention return values or error handling, but those are not expected from the schema's lack of an output schema. The description fills the context gap well for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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 already provides descriptions for all six parameters, and these descriptions are specific and informative (e.g., layout 'columns splits left to right', padding 'Px of empty margin kept inside the work area'). The tool description adds little beyond what the schema says; it reinforces the overall behavior but does not materially enhance parameter understanding. With 100% schema coverage, 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 purpose: 'Tile Chrome windows over one monitor in equal parts with no gap.' It specifies the resource (Chrome windows), the action (tile), and the scope (one monitor, equal parts, no gap). The additional clarification 'Only Chrome windows' further narrows the scope, leaving no ambiguity about 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 provides implicit constraints (e.g., 'at least one target needs a scriptable tab') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no comparison with sibling tools like 'window_layout' or 'move_tab', and no conditions like 'use this when...'. It lacks direct usage guidance for an agent choosing among similar window management tools.

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