list_live_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 adds real scope detail beyond that: it enumerates which windows are returned (main plus floating plug-ins) and what each entry contains (screen position and size), which is exactly the behavioral context needed before aiming clicks.

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 sentence with the resource, its scope, the returned fields, and the intended use, all front-loaded before the em-dash rationale. Nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to convey scope and intent, and it does. The sole minor gap is that it does not state preconditions such as Live needing to be running or what happens if no windows are open.

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 there is no schema semantics to compensate for and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing further about parameters because none exist.

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 and resource ('List open Ableton Live windows') and scopes it precisely to the main window plus every floating plug-in window, with position and size returned. It implicitly separates itself from focus_live_window and screenshot_live_window by declaring the output is coordinates for clicking, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear downstream use case — 'use these coordinates to aim computer-use clicks' — which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right precursor. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives such as focus_live_window or screenshot_live_window, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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