list_windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists windows but doesn't describe return format (e.g., array of objects), pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or whether it's a real-time snapshot versus cached data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List on-screen windows') and adds essential details ('with bounds and owner metadata'). There's zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data about windows. It lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral traits like whether it requires screen recording permissions. For a tool in a context with sibling recording/screenshot tools, more completeness is needed.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details (none exist), but it implies the tool operates without filters, which aligns with the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('on-screen windows'), specifying what information is returned ('bounds and owner metadata'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_displays' or 'screenshot_window', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_displays' for displays or 'screenshot_window' for capturing window images. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusion criteria, leaving usage context implied at best.

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