list_windows

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe local read, so the description's main added value is naming the returned fields (title, class, workspace, position, size). It says nothing about ordering, whether hidden/minimized windows are included, or result size, which an agent would want to know.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, then lists the return fields. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so by naming the five fields. Missing only secondary details like ordering or inclusion of minimized windows.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4. The description correctly does not invent options that don't exist.

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 ('List') and resource ('all open windows') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent immediately knows this is an enumeration tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_focused_window or list_running_apps, which keeps it below a 5.

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 word 'all' implicitly signals use this when you need the full window set rather than the single focused window, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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