ui.windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool lists various UI components, but does not explain the structure of the return value, performance implications, required permissions, or what 'UI geometry' means. The agent is left guessing about the output format.

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 of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is essential; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks details on the format of the returned list (e.g., what fields each entity includes) and does not clarify the relationship between the different UI components listed. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying the entities listed, but provides no further details on the output. According to the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4, which is appropriate given the minimal but functional description.

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 Blender windows, screens, workspaces, areas, regions, and UI geometry. It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resources. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'context.areas' or 'ui.state', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'context.areas' for current area information or 'ui.state' for UI state details. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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