env_window_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('organize'), suggesting potential changes to window layouts, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing layouts, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency for a tool with parameters.

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 phrase, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. There's no wasted text, but it may be overly brief given the tool's complexity. Every word contributes to the purpose, though more detail could improve clarity.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral aspects, or usage context. For a tool that likely modifies window layouts, this minimal description is inadequate to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 compensate. It mentions 'environment window layout' but doesn't explain the three parameters (auto, mode, config) or their nested properties (e.g., xStart, cols). No semantic details are added beyond the schema's structure, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 '整理环境窗口布局' (organize environment window layout) states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It indicates a verb ('organize') and resource ('environment window layout'), but doesn't clarify what 'organize' entails (e.g., arranging, resizing, positioning) or distinguish it from sibling tools like env_create or env_revise. The purpose is understandable but vague.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when windows need organizing), or exclusions. With siblings like env_create, env_revise, and env_terminate, there's no indication of how this tool differs in usage scenarios.

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