tile_windows

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-obvious behavior: monitor selection is derived from a window's page work area, a scriptable (non-chrome://) tab is required, and maximized windows are restored first because maximized ignores bounds. These are exactly the edge cases an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and highly dense with zero filler, though several sentences are clause-heavy (the monitor/work-area sentence in particular) which slightly taxes readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, maximized-window edge case, monitor derivation, and alternative tools. Combined with annotations that declare idempotent and non-destructive semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the area nested object and the layout enum. The description adds context for why area exists (fallback when no scriptable tab) but does not elaborate on individual parameter syntax, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Tile Chrome windows") plus the precise scope ("over one monitor in equal parts with no gap"). It immediately rules out non-Chrome windows, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like window_layout or move_tab.

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?

Names two alternatives explicitly with their selecting conditions: "To restore a saved arrangement use window_layout; to move one tab into another window, move_tab." It also states prerequisites (only Chrome windows, at least one scriptable tab).

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