onda_window_new

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. It states the action (open a fresh empty main window) and the return value ({ windowId }). It also adds the context that this avoids contaminating existing windows, which is useful. It does not mention potential side effects like focus changes, but the description is reasonably transparent for a creation 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 two sentences long and front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 is complete for a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. It explains the purpose, the return value, and the ideal use case. Given the context of sibling tools, the concept of a 'window' is clear. Minor details like failure conditions are not addressed, but they are not essential for this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since no properties are defined). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not attempt to add parameter information because there is none. The description's mention of the return value is a bonus.

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 tool opens a fresh empty main window, using a specific verb and resource. It also draws an analogy to File > New Window, making the purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onda_window_list and onda_window_focus.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'when an agent needs to host a workspace in a brand new window without contaminating existing ones.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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