Set i3 Layout

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds 'Reversible', which is important behavioral context. It also clarifies that 'border_width applies only to the pixel border', providing edge-case behavior beyond the schema.

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 well-structured sentences with all essential information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, usage prerequisites, behavioral notes, and cross-reference to a sibling tool for other functionalities.

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%, but the description adds semantic value by specifying that at least one of layout/split/border is required (schema allows all null) and that border_width is conditional on border='pixel'. This helps the agent form valid invocations.

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 clearly states the verb ('set') and the resource ('focused container layout, split, border'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'toggle_window_state' by directing to it for floating/fullscreen/sticky states, ensuring the agent can differentiate.

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?

Explicitly says 'Provide at least one of layout/split/border', giving a clear requirement for parameter selection. Also tells when not to use this tool by referencing 'toggle_window_state' for other window states.

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