Resize the focused 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 discloses that the resize is relative ('relative=true is implied') and explains the effect of positive/negative x. However, it does not mention the effect of y, behavior when both are zero, or failure modes (e.g., no matching window). It gives core behavior but not exhaustive detail.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with useful information: the core operation, an example, the implied mode, and optional targeting with a safety note. No wasted words; the critical information is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: relative resize semantics, explicit target selection, and a practical safety tip. It is slightly lacking in edge-case behavior (e.g., y-axis effect, zero deltas), but overall it provides what an agent needs to use the tool correctly in most situations.

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 coverage is 50% (only match and address have descriptions). The description adds meaning to x and y by explaining they are pixel deltas and provides an example. It also clarifies the precedence between address and match ('wins over match'), which is not fully stated in the schema. This compensates well 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 states a specific verb ('Resize') and resource ('window') with the key concept 'pixel deltas' and gives a concrete example ('x=100 grows right side, x=-100 shrinks'). It also clarifies the implied 'relative=true', distinguishing it from absolute-resize tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like window_snap or window_focus.

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 explains the default use (focused window) and provides guidance for when to pass an explicit target ('Optionally pass address/match to resize an explicit window instead of the focused one (safer with follow_mouse=1)'). This gives a clear use case and a safety tip, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it.

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