window_layout

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

The description discloses key side effects and behaviors: save overwrites silently, and restore matches by tab URL overlap while reporting unrecognized windows. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent concrete expectations for action outcomes.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding essential behavioral details. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, key side effects, and the matching strategy for restore. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 description covers 100% of parameters (action and name), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so it remains at baseline.

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 (save, restore, list, delete) and the resource (window arrangement under a name). It distinguishes itself from related window tools by focusing on named layouts rather than individual window 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?

The description provides important behavioral notes (silent overwrite, URL-based matching) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tile_windows or move_tab. It implies usage through its functionality but lacks direct comparison.

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