List Studio windows

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The one added trait is 'verified' — meaning unverified/stale windows are filtered out — which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it is left undefined and no rate/refresh behavior is mentioned.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the returned resource. It is tight but verges on under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the returned fields (windows/dialogs and IDs) and a filtering guarantee ('verified'). Only the meaning of 'verified' and whether the list is a snapshot versus live remains unexplained.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

Specific verb 'List' plus concrete resource 'Studio windows/dialogs and IDs' tells the agent exactly what it gets back. It stops short of naming the sibling studio_select_window, so the boundary between listing and selecting is only implied by 'for selection'.

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?

'For selection' implies a list-then-select workflow, so usage is inferable, but the description never states when to call this versus studio_select_window, studio_observe, or studio_status, and gives no prerequisites such as Studio being launched.

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