tile_windows

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: maximized windows are restored first because they ignore bounds, and the monitor selection mechanism depends on reading a page from a window. It also explains the limitation of scriptable tabs. This complements the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose first, then constraints in the following sentences. No redundant words; every sentence adds information about scope, prerequisites, or edge cases.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested area object), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: scope, monitor selection, scriptable tab requirement, and maximized window handling. The schema covers parameter details. It lacks return value info, but no output schema exists and the tool likely returns nothing meaningful. Overall it's sufficient.

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?

All parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It does add context that 'area' is used when no target window has a scriptable tab, which relates to the schema description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds marginal value beyond schema.

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: 'Tile Chrome windows over one monitor, splitting its usable area into equal parts that leave no gap.' It specifies the resource (Chrome windows) and the action (tiling over a monitor), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the extension limitation.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it only works on Chrome windows ('Only Chrome windows: an extension cannot touch other applications'), and it explains the prerequisite that at least one target window needs a scriptable tab. It also clarifies when to use the 'area' parameter indirectly. No explicit alternative tool is named, but the scope is well-defined.

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