Touchpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what data is returned (IDs, titles, sizes, app names) and adds valuable workflow context about how window IDs scope other operations, though it omits explicit safety assertions (e.g., read-only nature) or performance characteristics.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 describes return values, sentence 3 provides usage guidelines. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately summarizes return values and explains integration patterns rather than documenting field-level schema details. Complete for a simple enumeration tool.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to elaborate upon beyond the 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 clearly states the tool 'List[s] all open windows' with specific resource and action. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'apps' by mentioning it returns window-specific attributes like IDs, titles, and sizes, and from 'activate_window' by being a listing rather than action operation.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use window IDs to scope find/elements queries or activate_window,' naming specific sibling tools and establishing the workflow dependency (this tool provides IDs for others).

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