list_visible_panes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states read-only behavior, the return tuple structure, and the meaning of 'is_current'. The mention of 'apply_response_cap' is cryptic but adds some context beyond basic behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return format and safety note. No wasted words or repetitive content.

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?

It covers the core purpose and return format, but the unexplained 'ctx' parameter and ambiguity about 'current all desktops' leave gaps. The response cap note is vague, but overall the description is adequate for a simple list tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the required 'ctx' parameter at all. This is a critical gap, leaving the agent without any understanding of what ctx should be.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'visible pane tabs in current desktop'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_pane_screenshot and get_viewport_info.

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 implies its use for enumerating visible panes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It is a clear purpose but without direct comparison.

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