minimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or impact on browser state (e.g., whether tabs remain active). For a simple tool, this minimal disclosure is adequate but not rich; a 3 reflects that it adds basic behavior without deeper context.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential information (the action and target) and omits any filler. This is an exemplary case of conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally complete, but it lacks any mention of expected return values or behavioral nuances not captured elsewhere. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), some return information may be inferred, but the description alone does not cover all context an agent might need. A 3 reflects adequate-but-basic completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage by definition. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it does not introduce any confusion. Per the baseline rule for no parameters, a 4 is appropriate, as nothing is missing on this front.

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: 'Minimize the browser window.' It identifies a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'maximize' or 'set_window_rect,' but the purpose is self-evident from the name and phrasing, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning conditions, exclusions, or related tools. An agent receives no help in deciding between 'minimize,' 'maximize,' or 'set_window_rect' beyond the literal action, so this dimension is under-served.

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