List desktop windows

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context about scope (top-level windows), platform (Windows), and output fields. No contradiction with annotations found.

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?

Two crisp sentences: the first states the operation and output fields, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema or 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool, this is almost complete: it identifies the target resource, lists output fields, and links to its downstream use (window_control). The only significant gap is the undocumented includeHidden parameter.

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 only parameter, includeHidden, has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its effect—especially whether it includes minimized windows, hidden windows, or other invisible top-level windows. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

Uses specific verb 'List' and clear resource 'top-level Windows desktop windows', enumerates returned fields (title, process ID, handle, position, size, minimized state), and separates it from window_control by stating its purpose of enabling reliable targeting.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this when wanting to target window_control, giving a clear use context. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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