duplicate_window

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

Annotations already signal mutation without destruction; the description adds 'deep-copy' and 'no history', explaining the key effect on the new window and implying the original view is left intact. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful behavioral nuance beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 short clauses communicate the action, an important behavioral caveat, and a usage tip with no filler. Front-loaded action and caveat make it highly scannable.

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?

The description covers purpose and primary behavior, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanation, an agent still lacks explicit documentation for the required id and optional new_id, so completeness is partial.

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 two parameters, id and new_id, have no schema descriptions and the description does not mention them. An agent must infer from property names alone that id identifies the source view and new_id names the new window; this is likely but 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?

States a precise action ('deep-copy a view into a new window') and an explicit qualifier ('no history') that distinguishes it from simple open/close window tools. The phrase 'Use before experimenting' reinforces that this is a duplication action for safe exploration. No ambiguity about the core operation.

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?

'Use before experimenting' is a clear directive for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly exclude cases, but the experimental-safety context is sufficient for a simple utility.

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