Create Window output matrix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the create semantics are implied. The description adds that it produces a 'scaffold' with specific internal elements, but does not disclose side effects, whether existing nodes are modified, or performance implications. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the tool's complexity; however, for what it covers, every word earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage, and many competing create_* siblings, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not cover usage scenarios, parameter roles, or expected results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description coverage is only 29%, with descriptions for just name and parent_path; the remaining five parameters (active, perform_mode, window_count, resolution_width, resolution_height) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain any parameter behavior or relationships, so an agent is left without meaning for the majority of 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('Window COMP output matrix scaffold') along with its key components ('window maps, source maps, status, and setup notes'). It clearly conveys the tool's purpose but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like create_multi_output or setup_output.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it creates, without mentioning conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions such as 'use this instead of create_multi_output when...'.

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