Hyprland status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status query but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions or response characteristics. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no unnecessary wording, and it is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool. Every word 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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context for an agent to understand what it returns and when to use it. It states the primary outputs ('workspaces' and 'focused window') but leaves ambiguity about the exact format and scope (e.g., 'current' could mean all workspaces or just the active one). Without an output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The input schema is empty, which fully defines the parameter space. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('current Hyprland workspaces and the focused window'). It is specific and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like desktop_status or window_list, which may overlap in function, so it loses a point for lack of distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as desktop_status, window_list, or window_focus. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer its appropriateness solely from the purpose.

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