window_command_interface

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'when supported' but does not explain what happens when unsupported (e.g., error, empty response) or any side effects. The minimal wording gives agents little insight into expected behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not effectively structured. It lacks any elaboration on purpose, parameters, or behavior. The brevity under-specifies the tool, making it less helpful than a slightly longer description that would clarify usage.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the command interface contains and how parameters influence the result. It does not. The condition 'when supported' is unexplained, and no return format is described. For a tool in a large suite, this is insufficient context.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (session_id or window_title). The defaults are visible in the schema, but their purpose and how they affect the result are completely undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: return the active window's command interface. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like command_interface_sections or command_interface_commands, which return specific parts, while this returns the whole interface. However, it doesn't define what a 'command interface' is or clarify the 'when supported' condition, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, when it is applicable, or when to prefer sibling tools like command_interface_search. The phrase 'when supported' hints at conditional availability but lacks specifics on how to determine support.

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