manage_windows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose an important prerequisite: Accessibility permission for most actions. It also notes the absolute-coordinate behavior on multi-monitor setups. However, it does not flag that 'close' is destructive or describe state-change side effects for minimize/fullscreen, which would be valuable for a no-annotation mutation-capable tool.

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 tightly written in two sentences, front-loading the complete range of actions and then adding only the most relevant caveats. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

The description covers permission requirements and multi-monitor coordinate handling, but it does not clarify per-action parameter obligations (e.g., move requires position, resize requires size) or hint at what the 'list' action returns. Since there is no output schema, those details would meaningfully improve completeness for an AI 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 schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by specifying that 'move' uses absolute coordinates in multi-monitor contexts and by linking that to get_displays. Other parameters rely on the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 opens with a concrete, specific verb list ('List, move, resize, minimize, fullscreen, or close') tied to a clear resource ('application windows'). This matches the action enum and clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_displays and app_visibility by focusing on window manipulation.

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 gives explicit operational guidance for multi-monitor setups: call get_displays first and pass absolute coordinates to 'move'. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, but the action scope and permission requirement make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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