window_layout

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: save overwrites without asking, restore uses URL-overlap matching because window IDs don't survive restarts, and unrecognized windows are reported rather than guessed. This fully discloses the tool's quirks and limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core actions. Every sentence provides value: overwrite behavior, recognition logic, and the version requirement—no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors and edge cases: overwriting, window ID instability, matching strategy, and version dependency. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly across all actions.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: name is required except for list, and action descriptions like 'save snapshots every window' clarify the effect. This goes beyond the simple enum descriptions in the 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 saves, restores, lists, or deletes named window arrangements, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tile_windows or move_tab. The verb+resource structure is explicit and specific.

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?

Usage context is implied by the action enum and the description's narrative, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The version requirement is a partial prerequisite note but not a full usage guideline.

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