List windows

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this without contradicting it. It adds real behavioral value in the ordering guarantee ('front first') and the fact that flags such as [active] and [backdrop] are attached to each entry, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and result ordering, followed by the routing hint and a one-word safety note. Every sentence earns its place; the trailing 'Read-only' is the only mild redundancy with annotations.

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 parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only semantics, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, ordering, entry contents, and downstream usage. An agent can invoke and chain it correctly without further context.

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 parameters, so the schema baseline is already 4 and the description correctly adds no param noise. It instead clarifies where the value for a related 'window' argument originates, which helps the agent chain this tool with others.

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 and resource ('List every screen and the windows on it') and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, position, size, owning task, and status flags. It also differentiates itself from the sibling amiga_ui_list by scoping that tool to buttons inside 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?

Gives an explicit use case — finding a window's title to feed the 'window' argument of other tools — and names the alternative tool (amiga_ui_list) with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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