Show omarchy-grid window order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It says 'Debug view', implying a non-mutating inspection, but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur. It explains the meaning of position 1 in different modes, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose output format or whether any side effects exist, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-averse agent.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the positional nuance is added compactly. Every word contributes information.

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 simple read-only debug view with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to understand the tool's function and the meaning of the positional indices. It could explicitly note that it is read-only, but 'Debug view' strongly implies that. Overall, complete enough for a tool of this simplicity.

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 the schema is trivially covered. The description adds meaning about what is returned (placement order with titles) and the significance of positions, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 for no parameters is appropriate.

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 shows 'the placement order (and titles) of tiled windows on the active workspace' — a specific verb (show) and resource (window order). It adds contextual detail about position meaning that helps distinguish it from a generic window listing, though it does not explicitly compare to siblings like window_list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use when you need the order' or exclude window_list, layout_mode, etc. The phrase 'Debug view' implies it is for diagnostics, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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