browser_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions, side effects of mutating window state, whether geometry params are ignored in maximized/fullscreen states, or what the get mode returns.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the actionable surface. Only minor waste in enumerating the state values, which already live in the enum.

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 6-param, zero-required, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the action surface but omits which parameters apply to get vs set and what the read path returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% and enum values are already documented in the schema, so the description adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb set (inspect/set) and resource (browser window), covering both state values and geometry. It is not confused with most siblings, though no explicit contrast is drawn with the close neighbors browser_set_viewport or browser_set_page_zoom.

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 get-vs-set duality is implied by 'inspect bounds or set state ... and dimensions/position', which hints at the two modes. However, no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention that 'action' defaults to 'get', and no routing against viewport/zoom siblings.

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