Open windows

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

The annotations already establish a safe, idempotent read. Beyond those, the description discloses the MRU ordering and points to the handle/title as the key to pass onward, which the annotations do not convey (even though the include_hidden schema text carries the hidden-window caveat). It stops short of describing pagination or result size, which is acceptable for a bounded window list.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the core behavior and ordering come first, the follow-up action second. Every clause earns its place.

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 exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description fully covers what to do with the results; only minor gaps exist, such as no hint about the volume of windows returned or how include_hidden changes the listing.

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 100%, and include_hidden and response_format are both documented in the schema with defaults and rationale. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it neither compensates for nor detracts from the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the open application windows'), the ordering ('most recently used first'), and the returned content ('application names'). It also names the natural follow-up sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from nvda_activate_window and the inspector tools without reading either 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?

It clearly implies the context of use: enumerate windows and then call nvda_activate_window with the title or handle. It gives no explicit exclusions or when-not guidance, but the routing to the alternative makes the intent unambiguous.

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