computer_get_active_window

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

The word 'Get' and the documented dictionary return imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the return shape is disclosed. With no annotations present, the description carries the burden, but it omits any edge-case behavior such as what happens if no active window exists or whether permissions are required.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return type is stated directly.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the operation and the return key. It could add a note about the absence of an active window or environment requirements, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 operation ('Get the currently active window ID') and the exact return contract (dictionary with 'window_id' key). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like computer_get_window_name, but the return key makes its distinct purpose clear.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need the active window's ID. However, the description provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling computer_* tools.

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