computer_get_window_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get the size of a window' without noting that it requires a window ID, what units the size is in (pixels), whether the window must be currently open, or any potential errors. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites and edge cases.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter, and the information is front-loaded. No waste.

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?

There is an output schema, which likely describes the size format (width/height), so the return value is covered by that. However, the description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the window must exist), error conditions, or the fact that the window ID is required. Given the simplicity and the output schema, this is still incomplete because the agent has no guidance on what happens if the window is invalid or how to obtain the window_id.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('Window identifier'), so the description adds no new meaning. The description does not clarify what constitutes a valid window_id (e.g., numeric ID vs. name), so while the baseline is 3, the lack of additional detail keeps it there.

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 that the tool gets the size of a window, which aligns with the name and identifies the resource and action. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_window_size or get_window_position, though it could explicitly mention that it returns width and height, which is implied.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident and the sibling context suggests it is a basic read operation for window size. Missing explicit context about when to prefer it over get_window_position or set_window_size, but not misleading.

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