window_fullscreen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the action ('Set fullscreen state'), it doesn't describe what happens when the state changes (e.g., visual effects, impact on other windows), whether this requires specific permissions, or potential side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic 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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief but complete parameter explanation in bullet-point style. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, one optional), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and parameters adequately. The output schema means return values don't need explanation in the description, though additional behavioral context would improve completeness for a state-changing operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents both parameters: 'state' with its allowed values ('on', 'off', 'toggle') and 'window_id' with its optional nature and default behavior ('Omit for the current window'). This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 verb ('Set fullscreen state') and resource ('for an iTerm2 window'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like window_focus or window_resize by focusing on fullscreen functionality rather than other window operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when fullscreen state changes are appropriate, or how it relates to other window management tools in the sibling list. The only implied usage is for setting fullscreen state, but no context is given.

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