Game window state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it lists the state fields returned (existence, title/pid, rect, foreground) and discloses the non-obvious side-effect-free property that input/screenshot tools handle focusing on their own.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core answer to 'what is this?' is front-loaded before the useful focusing caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only explicit sibling routing missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document in the description; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 resource (the FiveM game window) and enumerates exactly what it reports: existence, title/pid, on-screen rect, foreground status. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like server_info or status, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 rather than stated — an agent infers it should call this before input/screenshot work, and the second sentence helpfully notes that input/screenshot tools focus the window automatically. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. focus_window).

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