list_window_identities

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the filtering behavior ('all non-expired window identities') and the returned fields, which is genuine behavioral content for a read-only listing, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result-size limits, or permissions.

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 prose is front-loaded and short, but the tool string re-documents the 'Parameters' section that the input schema already covers and a 'Returns' block even though an output schema exists, so a meaningful fraction of the text is duplicated structured data.

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 list tool with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials of scope and return fields. It still omits ordering, pagination, and whether 'format' affects the output shape, which are the remaining gaps an agent would face before calling it.

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% for two parameters. The description only glosses project_key as 'Project identifier', which adds essentially nothing beyond the name, and the 'format' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving it entirely unexplained across schema and prose.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List active window identities for a project') and the second narrows scope to non-expired entries with named fields. It's immediately understandable, but it never distinguishes itself from lookalike siblings such as whois or create_agent_identity, so an agent must infer which identity-related tool applies.

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 when-to-use guidance: no statement of which situations call for this listing versus whois or the agent-registry tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is implicit in the word 'active' (non-expired).

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