aidex_windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (listing windows with specific attributes) and its relationship to another tool, but doesn't mention potential limitations like performance impact, permissions needed, or what happens if no windows match. The description adds useful context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its relationship to another tool. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the return format or any constraints, slightly limiting completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'filter' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all open windows') with specific attributes ('titles, PIDs, and process names'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'aidex_screenshot' by explaining its role in finding window titles for that tool.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to find the exact window title for aidex_screenshot with mode="window"') and when not to use it ('No project index required'). It names the alternative tool ('aidex_screenshot') and specifies the context for its use.

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