filmora_windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one non-trivial behavioral detail — results are limited to a 'validated process', i.e., spoofed/foreign windows are filtered out — but it says nothing about enumeration scope (top-level only vs. child dialogs) or stability of handles across calls.

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 dense sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (verb, resource, filter, return fields) carries information.

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 zero parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema that documents the handle/geometry returns, the description needs only to state the enumeration scope and filter, which it does. It stops just short of the discovery-to-selection workflow that would make it self-sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no argument surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly makes no attempt to describe inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (visible Filmora windows/dialogs), plus the scoping filter ('validated process') and the returned fields (handles, geometry). It is distinguishable in practice from filmora_select_window, but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.

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 describes the output but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction, and never points to filmora_select_window as the follow-up for acting on a discovered window. The discovery-then-select workflow is only implied by the sibling set.

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