List MAX+plus II windows

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the discovery semantics and disclosed return fields (HWND, PID, bounds, title). It does not say what happens when no windows are found or whether an active desktop session is required, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.

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?

Front-loaded with the high-value content (what is discovered and returned) followed by the ordering rule. The closing sentence, 'All agents call this standard MCP tool,' is promotional filler that does not help an agent decide or call correctly.

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 zero-required-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, listing the returned fields and the required next step is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around empty-result and environment-precondition behavior.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully explains 'root' and its MAXPLUS2_ROOT default. The description says nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds no extra meaning.

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: 'discover real windows/dialogs of installed MAX+plus II executables,' and even enumerates what each entry carries (HWND, PID, bounds, title). This clearly separates it from siblings like desktop_observe or desktop_action, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Gives a concrete sequencing rule: 'Select exactly one returned windowId before observing/input,' which tells the agent this is a prerequisite step for the observation/input tools. It stops short of naming those alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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