list_windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope ('visible windows') and that geometry may be absent ('where available'), but omits permissions, ordering, and an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement. This is minimally adequate for a simple 0-parameter list tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The parenthetical return-field list and purpose clause both earn their 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 simple 0-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return fields and the use context. It leaves only minor details like ordering or pagination unspecified, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it appropriately adds none.

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 ('List') and resource ('visible windows'), plus the fields returned (title, process, geometry where available). It also positions itself as a discovery step before 'window capture', implicitly distinguishing it from the sibling capture tool.

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 phrase 'so a target can be chosen for window capture' clearly implies when to use it: before attempting capture. It does not name an alternative tool or give explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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