Swap/move a tiled window

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the tool 'verify[ies] geometry changed', which is a useful signal, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the target window is not found. The phrase 'locked address target' is ambiguous and unexplained, reducing transparency further.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds a behavioral verification step. It contains no filler or repetition, making it a model of conciseness.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter explanation, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool. It does not cover usage context, parameter semantics for all inputs, or potential pitfalls. The presence of many window-related siblings increases the need for differentiation, which is absent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It only hints that 'address' is the locked target, but leaves 'match' and 'direction' unexplained. 'Direction' is obvious from the enum, but 'match' is entirely unclear. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('swap') and resource ('a tiled window with its neighbor'), and adds a unique detail about using a 'locked address target' and verifying geometry change. This is clear for a knowledgeable agent, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'layout_swap_windows', which likely has a similar purpose.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or distinct scenarios (e.g., tiled vs floating windows, other swap tools like 'layout_swap_windows'). An agent must infer usage from context alone.

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