resize_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it says nothing about whether the resize affects other tabs in the window, whether it requires permissions or user gesture, what failure modes exist, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutating operation with zero structured behavioral coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient but edges toward under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

With three parameters, only 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to explain sizing units, default targeting, and side effects. It provides none of these, leaving the definition too thin for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is only 33% — tabId is documented but width and height have no descriptions anywhere, and the description adds no units (pixels? CSS units?), no bounds/rationale, and no explanation of negative or zero values despite the schema permitting large negative minimums. The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ("Resize") with a specific resource ("the Zen window containing the tab"), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like tabs_create or navigate. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't clarify that sizing is expressed via width/height or how the target window is chosen.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus related siblings (tabs_select, tabs_context, screenshot), and no mention of preconditions such as the tab being valid or the window being resizable. The agent must infer everything about appropriate context.

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