game_window

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is dual-mode (get/set) but says nothing about what a get returns, whether set applies immediately or requires a running game, or what constraints exist on the position object. The agent must infer behavioral traits from parameter names alone.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, listing the core capabilities in one breath. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified for an 8-parameter dual-mode 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 8 optional parameters, a nested position object, a dual get/set mode, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot determine the get-response format, how to construct a set request, or whether vsync and borderless are settable, without guessing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the 8 parameters is already documented in the input schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description groups some parameters into named concerns (size, fullscreen, title, position) but adds no meaning beyond the schema and omits vsync and borderless entirely.

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 verb pair ('Get/set') with a clear resource ('window') and lists the affected properties: size, fullscreen, title, position. This distinguishes it from the many input/interaction siblings like game_click and game_key_press. However, it omits two schema properties (vsync, borderless) and does not explicitly differentiate from the nearby game_viewport tool.

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 for when to use get versus set, when this tool is preferable to game_viewport, or whether a running project is required. The action parameter defaults to 'get', but the description gives no hint that the mode must be chosen or what conditions favor one mode over the other.

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