window_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool creates something ('Create a new iTerm2 window'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing windows, whether the window becomes focused automatically, or what the output contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function and parameters.

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 (which handles return values), 2 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, and relatively simple functionality, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context about permissions, focus behavior, or side effects, which would be helpful for a creation 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 compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'profile' (with guidance to omit for default) and 'command' (to run in the new window). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or provide examples.

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 specific action ('Create a new iTerm2 window') with the resource ('iTerm2 window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tab_new' or 'session_split' which create different terminal components. It uses precise verb+resource terminology that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implied usage context through the parameter documentation ('Omit for the default profile'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tab_new' or 'session_split'. It lacks clear guidance on scenarios where creating a window is preferable to creating tabs or sessions.

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