apple_windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely lists actions without explaining side effects or risks. Actions like 'close' and 'hide_app' imply significant effects, and the description does not warn that some actions may be destructive or require confirmation. The confirm parameter is only described in the schema, not in the tool description.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses an action list for a quick scan. The first clause and the action list have minor redundancy, but overall it is efficient and not bloated.

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 (14 actions, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description plus the rich schema provides adequate context for most operations. However, it lacks guidance on return values (e.g., list_windows likely returns data) and does not clarify the confirm/preview behavior, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including detailed explanations for each action and parameter. The tool description only repeats the action list without adding new parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but does not enhance understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Manage macOS windows' and lists concrete actions like minimize, resize, and fullscreen, making the tool's scope clear. It distinguishes from sibling apple_* tools by targeting window management specifically. However, 'manage' is broad and the action list is an overview without detailed semantics.

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 description implies usage for macOS window management but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention that other apple_* tools handle different system aspects, nor does it explain when certain actions (e.g., close vs hide) should be preferred.

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