Read or set desktop text size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that set/reset supports dry-run and verifies every queryable post-state, which is valuable. However, it does not clarify what 'preview' does, whether read/preview have side effects, or any permission/authorization needs. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary actions and resource, and the second sentence adds relevant detail about dry-run and verification. No filler or redundancy; each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool supports multiple actions (read, preview, set, reset) with zero parameters, which is ambiguous: how does 'set' work without parameters? The description does not explain the mechanism (e.g., interactive prompt, default values, external config). With no output schema or annotations, the agent is left guessing about return values and side effects. This is a significant gap for a multi-action tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter semantics, but since there are none, this is acceptable and the baseline score of 4 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?

The description specifies concrete actions (read, preview, set, reset) on a specific resource (Omarchy's coordinated shell/GTK/terminal text size). This clearly distinguishes it from related font tools (font_set, font_list) which deal with fonts rather than text size. The verb+resource combination is precise.

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 implies usage (for adjusting text size) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools. Guidance is minimal and left to inference.

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