computer_get_window_name

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the core behavior (retrieve a window title) but does not mention behavior for invalid window_id, whether the title is a plain string, or any platform-specific quirks. For a simple read-only getter this is acceptable but not rich; a bit more detail would help.

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?

Single concise sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, there is no mention of alternatives or edge-case behavior, which leaves the description only minimally complete. For a one-parameter getter it is adequate, but it could tie to sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter window_id is described as 'Window identifier.' The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond restating 'window.' Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('title/name of a window'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_window_size or get_window_position; the agent knows exactly what data is returned. The only slight gap is not explicitly saying the window is identified by window_id, but that is in the schema.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to prefer this over computer_get_active_window or computer_get_app_windows, nor any exclusions. The 'when to use' must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the sibling context. This is below the minimum for helping an agent choose correctly among similar getter tools.

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