window_minimize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention whether the application is brought to front first, what happens when the app has no front window, whether accessibility permissions are required, or how the system behaves when the app is already minimized.

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 that front-loads the action and target. There is no redundant wording, filler, or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter tool this is minimally adequate: it names the action and the target. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves unresolved practical details such as whether the app must already be active, what constitutes the 'front window', and what happens if the app is not running.

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%: the only parameter, appName, is already described as 'Application name'. The description adds mild context by indicating that appName identifies the application whose front window will be minimized, but it does not go beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 identifies a specific action ('Minimize') and a specific resource ('the front window of an application'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling window tools like window_focus, window_resize, and window_close. The verb-plus-object construction leaves little doubt 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of window_close, window_focus, or other window operations. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case solely from the tool name and one-line description.

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