list_firefox_windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what information is returned (per-window tab and group counts, group titles and sizes) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations. Since this is a read-only listing tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is less critical, but the description could mention that it only lists windows and does not modify anything. The description adds some value beyond the schema (which has no parameters) by specifying the output content.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, and the second sentence provides a clear use case. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the output content (per-window tab and group counts, group titles and sizes) and the intended use case. It could potentially mention that it returns a list of windows, but that is implied. The description is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no parameters). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic content. With no parameters, the description's role is to clarify the tool's output, which it does effectively. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 tool lists Firefox windows with per-window tab and group counts, and each group's title and size. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Firefox windows'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_firefox_tabs and list_firefox_tab_groups by focusing on windows and their aggregate counts.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it to pick a target window for cross-window moves.' This provides clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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