da_window_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load of behavioral disclosure. It reveals platform-specific dependencies (wmctrl, osascript, PowerShell), the return structure (WindowInfo with fields), and the fact that it lists only visible top-level windows. It does not discuss error cases or performance, but the core behavior is well described.

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 efficiently structured: it states the primary action first, then details return fields and platform requirements. Three sentences cover all necessary information without redundancy. Each sentence earns its place, and the format is easy for an agent to parse.

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 enumeration tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete. It specifies the output fields, platform dependencies, and a relevant usage pattern (passing `hwnd` to `da_window_focus`). It could mention edge cases like no visible windows or permission errors, but given the tool's simplicity, current coverage is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds value by explaining how the `hwnd` field can be used downstream, but since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List all visible top-level OS windows.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like da_window_focus (which brings a window to the foreground) by focusing on enumeration rather than manipulation.

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?

While no explicit 'use when' or alternative exclusions are stated, the description provides context for a primary use case: obtaining an `hwnd` to pass to `da_window_focus`. It also notes platform-specific prerequisites (wmctrl, osascript, PowerShell), giving practical guidance for when the tool can be invoked. There is no clear statement of when not to use it, but the main context is implied.

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