glass_list_windows

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. The note that 'Window ids are not stable across calls' is a critical runtime behavior that agents must know to avoid caching issues, and it explicitly advises re-listing after window changes. This is a significant disclosure that goes 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 compact—two sentences—with the core action and return format first, followed by the important stability warning. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The structure front-loads the essential information effectively.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, the fields included, the JSON array format, and a caution about id stability. It does not explicitly mention behavior when no windows are present, but that is not critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (effectively no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. Based on the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not add any extra parameter-related information because none exists.

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 clearly states the action: 'List the app's top-level windows' and enumerates the specific fields returned (id, title, class, geometry, and active status). It also specifies the return format as a JSON array. While the verb and resource are specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like glass_select_window or glass_window, though the 'list' action makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers a behavioral warning about id instability, which suggests a usage pattern (re-list instead of caching), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools like glass_select_window or glass_window. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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