list_windows

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

The description states 'Read-only', which conveys non-destructive behavior, but with no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does not disclose other behaviors such as whether it returns only visible windows, performance implications, or any filters. It is a simple, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Read-only'.

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, highly concise, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no bloat.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it could clarify what is meant by 'recordable' (e.g., does it return only windows that meet certain criteria?) and whether there are any side effects or system permissions required. The lack of output schema means the description could hint at the return type (e.g., list of window IDs/titles), which it does not.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information. This is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('visible Windows application windows'), and clarifies the purpose by noting they are recordable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_sessions' (which likely lists sessions, not windows) and 'start_recording' (which starts, not lists).

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 this tool is for listing windows that can be recorded, which suggests use before or during recording to select a window. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'list_sessions' or how it relates to 'start_recording'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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