fx_windows

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List windows (focused marked)' conveys a non-destructive listing behavior and an output detail about focus, but it does not say what fields or identifiers each window entry contains or whether any state changes occur.

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 extremely concise—four words plus a meaningful parenthetical. Every part adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 no-parameter list command, 'List windows (focused marked)' provides a minimal but plausible contract. However, without an output schema, the description does not specify the shape of the returned list or how window identifiers are represented, which may be needed for follow-up actions like navigation.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The empty input schema already communicates that no arguments are required, and the description adds no conflicting information.

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 resource ('windows') and adds that the focused window is marked, which gives the agent a clear sense of the tool's output. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like fx_window based on plural versus singular, but it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use fx_windows versus fx_window, fx_navigate, or fx_snapshot. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context for calling it.

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