resize_window

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

Without any annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, persistence, whether it fails on certain window states, or if it alters the active window. The description is a bare operation statement, providing no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious resizing action.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and free of filler. However, it may be too terse, lacking any structure to accommodate additional necessary context, but for pure conciseness it scores well.

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 an output schema (though not shown), return values may be covered there, but the description itself is incomplete for a window-resizing action. It does not mention behavior in edge cases, error conditions, or whether the operation is atomic or reversible. With no annotations and minimal description, an agent would lack essential context to safely invoke this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter clarity. It mentions 'pixel dimensions', implying width/height units, but does not explain the optional 'target' parameter at all. There is no clarification on constraints (e.g., min/max, positive integers) or how 'target' selects a window. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 (resize), a clear resource (window), and the manner (to pixel dimensions). It is unambiguous about the primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like move_window or focus_window, but the core purpose is clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites like having an active/selected window, nor does it contrast with sibling tools. The phrase 'active/selected' hints at context but offers no explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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