Lists visible Genshin and Miliastra editor windows with windowId, PID, physical rectangle, foreground, and minimized state for read-only Windows 10 inspection.
List visible Genshin and Miliastra editor windows with current windowId, PID, physical rect, foreground and minimized state. Read-only Windows 10 compatible backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/non-destructive/non-openWorld, so the 'read-only' clause adds little; the genuine additions are the Windows 10 platform requirement and the 'visible' filter that scopes the result set. Returned fields are listed, which tells the agent what a call yields, though nothing is said about empty results or how 'physical rect' is encoded.
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, zero filler, and the highest-value content (what is listed, and the returned identifiers) is front-loaded. The platform/read-only caveat is correctly relegated to the tail.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming each field. It falls just short of complete because it says nothing about behavior when no editor windows exist.
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 for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing arguments.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('visible Genshin and Miliastra editor windows'), and it enumerates the fields returned (windowId, PID, rect, foreground, minimized). It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer on its own that the windowId feeds capture_editor_window / focus_editor_window.
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 only implied: given siblings like capture_editor_window and focus_editor_window, this is the discovery step that yields a windowId. There is no explicit 'use this first' statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.