stm32_get_ide_windows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and names the returned data (windows, dialogs, coordinates, titles), but it does not mention prerequisites, error behavior, or whether the IDE must be running. The semantics are reasonably transparent for a simple get/list tool, but not fully explicit.

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 a single, dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and clearly enumerates exactly what will be listed. Every word earns its place, making it both concise and structurally sound.

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 low-complexity tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It names the resource and the data points returned. However, it omits any mention of preconditions (e.g., IDE running) or how it relates to sibling tools, which would make the context fully 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 parametersasi, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since no parameters exist. Baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 starts with a specific verb, 'Lists', and identifies the resource ('all open STM32CubeIDE windows, dialogs, coordinates, and window titles'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but does not explicitly contrast it with similar tools like stm32_focus_ide_window or stm32_capture_ide_screenshot, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using this before focusing a window, capturing a screenshot, or launching the IDE. The intended use case is only implicit from the verb 'Lists' and the tool name, leaving the agent to infer context.

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