window_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict any of these. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that it runs 'wmctrl -l' and returns a list with four fields, giving the agent a concrete picture of the operation. No side-effect warnings are necessary given the read-only nature.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a returns line. The bilingual Hungarian/English text is a minor friction point, and 'Returns: str: Ablaklista' is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, but the structure is otherwise economical.

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 read-only, zero-parameter list tool with safety annotations, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and the included fields. It does not mention output formatting details beyond the field names, but the presence of an output schema or the trivial nature of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 schema only requires an empty params object, effectively meaning there are zero real parameters. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description has no obligation to explain parameter behavior. It correctly adds no parameter-related text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists open windows ('A nyitott ablakok listaja'), names the exact command (wmctrl -l), and enumerates the returned fields (azonosito, asztal, gep, cim). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like window_focus and window_close, which operate on windows rather than list them.

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 usage when an agent needs to enumerate open windows, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention how this relates to alternatives such as window_focus or window_close. There are no exclusion criteria, so the guidance is only implicit.

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