apply_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that windows are unminimized, app matching is fuzzy, and returns per-item success/errors. It also specifies coordinate origin and fraction semantics. However, it doesn't mention side effects on existing layouts or persistence, but the provided details are substantial.

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 dense paragraph packed with useful information. It lacks visual structure like bullet points, but every sentence contributes value. While it could be better organized, it is not verbose or redundant.

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 the core behavior, return value indication, and multi-screen support. It doesn't mention edge cases or failure handling beyond per-item errors, but given the complexity and lack of output schema, it is quite complete. It also distinguishes from related tools indirectly.

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 description enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema: 'app' is fuzzy matched, 'screen' defaults to current screen and comes from get_state, 'frame' uses fractions with top-left origin and provides concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Move and resize windows to build a layout.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like snap_window (single window) and apply_saved_layout (predefined layout). The description also explicitly mentions multi-screen support, further clarifying scope.

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 explains how to use the tool via the 'items' array and parameter details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't contrast with apply_saved_layout or snap_window, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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