qt_list_windows

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden, but "List" implies a non-mutating read and "top-level" usefully scopes which windows are included (excluding children). It still says nothing about whether a specific Qt instance must be selected first, or that hidden windows are excluded by default, which is nontrivial 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?

A single short sentence with the capability front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

An output schema covers return values and the tool is conceptually simple, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves key calling decisions (default hidden-window filtering, instance targeting) entirely unresolved.

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 0% and two optional parameters exist: `instance` (string|integer|null) and `skip_hidden` (default true). The description mentions neither, so an agent cannot tell that results are filtered to visible windows by default or what `instance` selects.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List all top-level windows") plus what is returned ("their types"), which separates it from tree-walking siblings like qt_object_tree or qt_active_popup. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is concrete enough that an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus qt_list_instances, qt_object_tree, qt_active_popup, or qt_scene_snapshot, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The discovery use case is only inferable from the word "List".

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