snap_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the numbering convention (1-based, as drawn by Plonk) and gives an example ('the middle zone of a three-zone set is 2'). It also clarifies that zone sets are per-monitor and retrievable via get_state. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or error cases, but the core behavior is well-disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by essential context and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, the meaning of zone numbers, the source of zone sets, and when to prefer apply_layout. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, this is a reasonably complete description.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a clarifying example for the zone parameter (middle of three = 2) and references get_state for zone sets, but this does not substantially exceed the existing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema 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 states a specific action ('Drop one window into a numbered zone') and clearly identifies the resource (the snap-zone set assigned to that monitor). It distinguishes itself from the sibling apply_layout by explicitly mentioning that apply_layout is for size-based descriptions, making the purpose 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?

The description gives an explicit alternative: 'use apply_layout instead when the user describes a size rather than a zone.' It also directs users to get_state for zone sets, implying that get_state should be consulted to understand zone assignments. While it does not list all when-to-use scenarios, it provides clear context and exclusion for the most similar sibling.

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