Window: status

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 usefully enumerates the state categories returned (layout, selected space/tab, focused pane, overlays, zoom, errors), which is real behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-mutating.

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 compact sentence listing the relevant state categories with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the fragment structure makes it read more like a caption than a front-loaded instruction.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate inventory of returned state. However, it omits the query's read-only nature and any routing relative to closely named siblings, leaving some context incomplete.

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 baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for, and the schema imposes no inputs.

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 implies an observational state query by saying 'What the window shows' and enumerating the aspects reported, but it uses no clear verb such as 'returns' or 'inspect' and never distinguishes this tool from siblings like herdr_status or herdr_app_shot. The purpose is inferable 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as herdr_app_shot and herdr_status present, the description leaves the agent to infer that this returns textual window state rather than a screenshot or global status.

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