ui-windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose whether the response is hierarchical, filtered by the current context, or limited to geometry data. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the full scope of resources. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema, the description should clarify what kind of result is returned, such as a nested hierarchy or flat list with geometry details. The description names the entities but leaves the response shape and scope (e.g., active workspace vs. all) implicit.

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, so parameter explanation is not needed. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this is fully adequate; there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema.

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 the specific verb 'List' and names concrete resources: windows, screens, workspaces, areas, regions, and UI geometry. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like app-workspaces or context-areas, which target narrower or different UI concerns.

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 intended usage is implied: call this when you need an inventory of Blender UI elements. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like ui-state, app-workspaces, or context-areas, nor does it provide exclusions.

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