niri_perform_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it fails to disclose that these actions mutate Niri state, may require a focused window, or could have side effects. The examples imply side effects (e.g., toggling) but do not explicitly state behavioral consequences or prerequisites.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a useful list of examples. Every line adds value, though the structure could be improved with a note about additional actions or a link to documentation.

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?

For a generic action tool with many possible actions, the description gives a decent sample but is not exhaustive. It doesn't mention that more actions exist or provide a way to discover them, and while an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain returns, the missing guidance on action-specific arguments limits completeness.

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 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining action_name with concrete examples and showing that args can be passed (e.g., args=['50%']). However, it does not enumerate all possible actions or the expected args for each, leaving ambiguity for many cases.

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 identifies the tool as performing Niri layout or window actions, with a specific verb and resource. The examples distinguish it from sibling tools that handle individual actions, but it doesn't explicitly state that this is the catch-all for actions without dedicated tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools like niri_set_column_width, which overlaps with the 'set-column-width' example. It lacks exclusions or context for choosing this generic action tool over specific ones.

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