manage_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains what each action does, including that get_rect returns coordinates/size and that set_rect requires all four parameters. It does not mention returned values for non-get actions or coordinate units, but no annotation contradiction exists and the behavioral surface is well covered.

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 efficiently organized: a one-line summary, a structured Args section, and a final routing sentence. Every part adds information, and the key purpose statement is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential actions, parameter meanings, and usage boundary. It does not specify coordinate units or return values for set_rect/maximize/minimize, which keeps it from being fully complete, but the core calling contract is clearly explained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does, by documenting every parameter: action's four enum values, x/y as screen positions, and width/height for set_rect, plus the requirement that all four be provided together. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement: 'Get or change browser window geometry and state.' It then enumerates the exact actions, making its scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools, particularly manage_tabs.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for browser-window geometry/state and to use manage_tabs for switching tabs instead. This provides clear selection guidance relative to the most likely sibling alternative.

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