Lists numbered buttons, fields, and menus from a window by partial title, so you can inspect and target UI controls without manually mapping the interface.
Lista os botões, campos e menus de uma janela (parte do título basta), numerados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| titulo | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description must carry the full load; it does disclose that this is a read-only enumeration and that partial title matching is accepted. It says nothing about what happens when the title is ambiguous or no window matches, and no permission or side-effect context is given.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and ending with the parenthetical that carries the parameter rule. No 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is simple with one argument. Still, the failure and ambiguity behavior of partial title matching is unaddressed, which matters for an agent driving windows.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the single titulo argument accepts a partial title. It does not clarify how matching is resolved if several windows share the substring.
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 concrete verb and resource: lists buttons, fields and menus of a window, with numbered enumeration. That distinguishes it from janelas_listar (which enumerates windows) and from tela_descrever, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of numbering hints that the output feeds into janela_clicar or janela_digitar, but the description never says when to pick this over tela_descrever or navegador_ler, nor any precondition such as the window being open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.