List open folder windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (path, title, hwnd) and the scope ('every currently open'), which strongly implies a read-only snapshot. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the verb 'list' and absence of mutation language make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the exact output fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it specifies the exact object being listed, the scope ('every currently open'), and the three return fields. The agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior because there are none to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('File Explorer folder window'), and a scope ('every currently open'), and it names the return fields (path, title, hwnd). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_folder_contents, which lists folder contents, and list_running_apps, which lists applications.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to enumerate currently open File Explorer folder windows—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The agent must infer the distinction from sibling tool names rather than receiving direct routing guidance.

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