window_resize

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 action ('Resize'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if invalid dimensions are provided, whether the change is immediate or animated, what happens to window content during resize, or what the tool returns. The description only covers basic parameter semantics without 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The Args section is well-structured but could be more integrated. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting as a docstring with separate 'Args:' section slightly reduces structural elegance.

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), no annotations, and 3 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool that changes window state, it should provide more behavioral context about effects, constraints, and error conditions to be truly complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: width and height as 'New width/height in pixels' and window_id with the important semantic that it can be 'Omit for the current window.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify pixel range constraints or window_id format.

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 ('Resize') and target resource ('an iTerm2 window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like window_move, window_focus, or window_close. It provides a complete verb+resource statement without being tautological.

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 resizing is appropriate, or how it differs from similar tools like window_move or window_fullscreen. The only contextual hint is that window_id can be omitted for the current window, but this is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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