window_children

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a non-mutating list operation and adds a useful platform caveat about WinUI/UWP apps having no classic children. It does not discuss edge cases like direct-versus-recursive enumeration, but for a read-only inspection tool the core behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and output fields; the second adds usage context and an alternative. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the target scenario, the practical follow-up action (window_post), and the main exception (modern apps). No critical calling information is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions hwnd incidentally as the child handle to pass to window_post. It does not explicitly state that the input hwnd is the parent window handle or where it should come from, though the tool name makes this mostly inferable. The description partially compensates for the missing schema detail but could be more explicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('child controls of a window'), and it names the returned attributes (class name, title, hwnd). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as the Win32 child-enumeration tool versus window_input_mode for modern apps.

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?

It explicitly says when this tool is useful ('classic Win32 apps with real child controls'), what to do with the results ('target the child hwnd in window_post'), and which alternative to use for modern apps ('use window_input_mode to detect them'). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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