list_windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (window IDs, owning apps, titles, bounds, minimized/on-screen status) and by noting that minimized windows can be included, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether the list spans all spaces/displays.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the returned fields in a compact list. Nothing is redundant or filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and scope across displays/spaces, which an agent might need when deciding how to interpret the list.

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% and both parameters (app filter, include_minimized default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List open macOS windows") and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It reads as a pure enumeration tool, which implicitly separates it from mutation siblings like manage_windows or window_action, but it never names or contrasts with any alternative.

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: listing windows suggests a discovery step before acting on a specific window. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as get_window_state or get_state, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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