Enumerates all visible windows and returns their handles, titles, process names, PIDs, screen rectangles, focus state, and minimized state so you can see what is on screen and locate target windows.
结构通道：枚举当前所有可见窗口。 返回句柄、标题、进程名、PID、屏幕矩形、是否聚焦、是否最小化。 用它可以知道"屏幕上有什么"，以及目标窗口的位置。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned field set, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, and 'enumerate' implies a read-only operation. But it never explicitly confirms it is side-effect free, says nothing about cost/latency of enumerating all windows, and doesn't note whether hidden or off-screen windows are excluded from '可见'.
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?
Three short, front-loaded lines: purpose, return payload, then use case. No filler. The opening '结构通道：' is mild jargon that costs a few tokens without adding much, keeping it just shy of a 5.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, which is exactly the gap it needs to fill for a zero-parameter listing tool. What remains missing is the relationship to the other desktop discovery tools, but the core call information is complete.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed.
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 ('枚举当前所有可见窗口') and immediately lists what it returns (handle, title, process name, PID, rect, focus/minimize state). The '结构通道' framing implicitly contrasts it with the pixel-based siblings (desktop_screenshot / desktop_perceive), though it never names them, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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?
Offers an implied use case: learn 'what's on screen' and locate a target window's position, which naturally precedes desktop_focus_window / desktop_click. However, it never states when to prefer this over desktop_perceive, desktop_elements, or desktop_cdp_targets, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.