game_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get/set' without disclosing immediate effects, requirement of game being running, or side effects like resizing possibly changing aspect ratio. The minimal description does not add meaningful behavioral 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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters. It is front-loaded but lacks essential details; it earns its place but is insufficient.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values for 'get', interactions between parameters, or prerequisites (e.g., window must exist). The agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already present. According to guidelines, baseline is 3; the description does not improve or degrade that.

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 tool's purpose: getting and setting window properties like size, fullscreen, title, and position. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., game_effects, game_audio) by targeting window management. However, it could be more specific about controlling the main game window.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain when to use 'get' vs 'set', nor does it mention that the 'action' parameter controls this. No exclusions or context are given.

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