list_windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list all visible windows' but doesn't explain what 'visible' means (e.g., excludes minimized windows?), what data is returned (titles, handles, positions), or whether it includes all desktop windows. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect assumptions.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action and scope. There is no verbosity or filler; every word contributes meaning ('List all visible windows on the Windows desktop').

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?

The tool is simple (no params), but the description is minimal and lacks critical details like return format or what fields are included for each window. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by indicating whether it returns titles, process IDs, coordinates, etc. It does not, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the tool's output.

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 input schema is an empty object with 100% schema coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to elaborate. The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate; no semantic gaps exist.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all visible windows on the Windows desktop'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'processes' (which lists processes) and 'see' (likely a screenshot tool), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., when to use 'see' or 'query' instead). This leaves the agent with limited decision support.

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