Raw Hyprland dispatch (Lua API)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It mentions the syntax constraints ('Expression must start with 'hl.' and only use the safe allow-listed charset'), but it does not describe the behavioral implications of dispatching, such as potential side effects, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. The term 'dispatcher' implies execution, but the description lacks clarity on 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 extremely concise: two sentences that deliver the core purpose, a critical constraint, an example, and a target audience. There is zero fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 generic nature and single parameter, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values, error behavior, and how to construct valid expressions beyond the single example. The absence of an output schema increases the need for explanation, but the description does not cover what the agent should expect from a successful dispatch. It is sufficient for a power user but incomplete for a cautious agent.

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 provides only a name and minLength for 'expression', with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by providing a concrete example ('dsp.focus({ monitor = '+1' })') and imposing additional constraints (must start with 'hl.', safe allow-listed charset). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not fully elaborate on the full range of accepted expressions or the Lua API structure.

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: 'Run any Hyprland dispatcher via the Omarchy Lua API.' It uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('Hyprland dispatcher'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, no sibling has a similar generic purpose, so it appears unique. The example further clarifies the intent.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'For power users / creative layouts.' It implies a niche use case but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since there are no directly related siblings, this level of guidance is adequate.

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