open_video_mix_projector

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. It explains the two operating modes (fullscreen/windowed), the meaning of monitor_index -1, and the mutual exclusivity constraint. It lacks side-effect details like whether existing projectors are replaced, but it exceeds minimal expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: a single introductory sentence followed by an Args block. Each line adds essential information without fluff, and the format is easy to scan.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers all necessary invocation details: parameter options, mode behavior, mutual exclusivity, and a cross-reference to get_monitor_list. It provides complete guidance for correct usage.

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 thoroughly explains each parameter: video_mix_type values, monitor_index semantics including the -1 sentinel, and projector_geometry format with mutual exclusivity. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: 'Open a fullscreen or windowed projector for Preview/Program/Multiview.' The verb 'open' and resource 'projector' are specific, and mentioning 'Preview/Program/Multiview' distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_source_projector.

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 clear context for parameter usage, including monitor_index -1 for windowed mode and the mutual exclusivity with projector_geometry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like open_source_projector, so it stops short of a full 5.

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