snap_window

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and side effects. It implicitly indicates a move/drop operation and clarifies zone numbering semantics (e.g., middle of three is 2) and where to find zone assignments (get_state). It does not explicitly state whether the operation is reversible or requires permissions, but for a window manager action, the description is sufficiently transparent about the effect on the window's position. A 4 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, highly efficient. The first sentence states the core function, the second clarifies numbering and directs to alternatives. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 4 params (all documented in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: how zone numbers work, where to get zone sets (get_state), and when to use apply_layout instead. It could mention return behavior, but that's often unnecessary for manipulative tools. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains how zone numbers are derived (from the drag overlay) and clarifies the relationship between the 'screen' parameter and window location. This enriches parameter understanding, justifying a 4.

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 action (drop a window into a zone) and the resource (numbered zone of the snap-zone set on a monitor). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning apply_layout for size-based layouts. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (when user refers to a zone number) and when not to (use apply_layout for size descriptions). It also references get_state for zone set configuration, giving clear context. This meets the highest bar for usage guidance.

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