read_window

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it uses UI Automation, works with specific app types, and requires window identification via title_contains or hwnd. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and key differentiator. The second sentence provides a concrete example and parameter guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations. It covers what it does, how it works, when to use it, and how to identify the window. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the absence of an output schema and the 'read text' phrasing make the output implicit.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating the identification methods from the schema. It does not explain max_chars behavior beyond the schema's default, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool reads text from a window via UI Automation and explicitly distinguishes it from screenshots. It also specifies supported targets (consoles, editors, native apps) and a typical use case, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., reading render progress) and explicitly mentions the 'no screenshot' approach, which implies an alternative. It also references list_windows for obtaining hwnd, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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