get_window_rect

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, but no additional detail is given about coordinate system, units, or lack of side effects. For a trivial getter this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the description is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read operation.

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 no parameters, has an output schema, and is a simple read operation, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The sibling set_window_rect provides enough contrast to disambiguate direction.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('get'), names the resource ('current window'), and specifies the exact data returned ('position and size'). It clearly distinguishes this read tool from the sibling set_window_rect.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like set_window_rect or maximize/minimize. Usage context is implied by the verb and resource, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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