computer_maximize_window

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 only says 'Maximize a window' and omits side effects, preconditions, idempotence, and whether other windows are affected. Because this is a mutating operation, the lack of behavioral context is a meaningful gap.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is easy to parse and front-loaded, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than being a fully helpful description.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, a single required parameter, and an existing output schema, the description is partially sufficient for invoking it correctly. However, with no annotations and no mention of preconditions or behavioral effects, the information is not fully complete on its own.

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 input schema fully describes window_id as 'Window identifier' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. However, the description adds no additional meaning or format guidance for the parameter, landing at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action and resource: maximize a window. The tool name and one-sentence description leave no ambiguity about what it does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like minimize_window, activate_window, or set_window_size, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when maximize is preferred over set_window_size, nor does it state whether the window must already be open or whether the operation also activates/raises the window. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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