list_headless_windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds the return format (JSON with specific fields), which provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence plus a docstring listing args and returns. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and clear semantics, the description is sufficient. It explains what it does and what it returns. The presence of an output schema (even if not shown) offloads some completeness burden. However, it could elaborate on the scope of 'top-level windows' to avoid ambiguity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context signal, meaning the tool description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'desktop name' implicitly in the Args line, adding little meaning beyond what the parameter name 'name' conveys. The default value and constraints are defined in the schema, not the description.

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 explicitly states 'List the top-level windows living on an off-screen desktop', clearly identifying the action (list) and resource (top-level windows on off-screen desktop). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_windows (likely for visible desktops) and list_child_windows (child windows).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The name and description imply it's for headless desktops, but no exclusions or conditions are provided. With similar sibling tools like list_windows and list_virtual_display_windows, explicit guidance would be helpful.

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