manage_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself, and it mostly does. It explains that get_rect returns coordinates and size, set_rect sets all four geometry values, and maximize/minimize change state. The main gaps are lack of detail on side effects, return format, and error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with its purpose, followed by a compact bulleted list of actions and parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the routing note is placed at the end without disrupting the core usage details.

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 all five parameters, every action, the set_rect requirement, and sibling routing, which is enough for correct selection and basic invocation. It does not mention prerequisites like a running browser, return shapes, or how maximize/minimize interact with get_rect, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description carries the full load. It defines each parameter ('Horizontal screen position for set_rect'), explains every action enum value, and adds the crucial constraint that all four geometry parameters are required for set_rect. It stops short of specifying units or coordinate-system details, so not a 5.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Get or change browser window geometry and state.' It enumerates four concrete actions (get_rect, set_rect, maximize, minimize), making it obvious what the tool does. The closing sentence also explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool manage_tabs.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this tool for browser-window geometry/state.' It also states when not to and names the alternative: 'For switching between browser tabs, use manage_tabs instead.' This is a clear when/when-not pattern with a specific alternative.

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