List buttons and menus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing coverage boundaries (Intuition, GadTools, ReAction, MUI 4/5 supported; custom-drawn UIs invisible) and the shape of each output line including flags like [disabled] or [selected]. The trailing 'Read-only' is a minor restatement of the annotation, but the toolkit-support caveat is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 scope comes first, then the output format, then supported toolkits and the limitation, then the workflow rule. Despite being dense, every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant filler.

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 available, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so concretely — one line per gadget with kind, label, id, position, size, value and state flags, and menu items as 'Menu/Item' paths with shortcuts. Combined with the usage rule and the coverage limitation, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 100%, so both optional parameters (window title substring filter, all_screens) are already documented in the schema. The description only implicitly corroborates the default by saying 'windows on the front screen'; it adds no syntax or matching guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (list) and a precisely scoped resource: gadgets (buttons, text fields, checkboxes, cycle gadgets, sliders, lists and rows) plus menu items of windows on the front screen. It also distinguishes itself from amiga_screenshot for custom-drawn content and from the amiga_windows sibling by focusing on widget-level inventory.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: call it before amiga_ui_click, amiga_ui_set and amiga_ui_menu to learn exact names. It also names the exclusion case — custom-drawn content in games or paint programs — and routes the agent to amiga_screenshot instead.

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