get_electron_window_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically detects apps with remote debugging on port 9222, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., window titles, IDs, states). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial context about automatic detection. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (detecting apps and retrieving window info), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and how (automatic detection on port 9222) but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate as a starting point but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents 'includeChildren' as a boolean to include child windows. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or implications of setting it true/false. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra semantic value.

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 purpose: 'Get information about running Electron applications and their windows.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('running Electron applications and their windows'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like read_electron_logs or send_command_to_electron by focusing on window info rather than logs or commands. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from take_screenshot, which might also involve window info, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage by stating it 'Automatically detects any Electron app with remote debugging enabled (port 9222),' which suggests when to use it (when such apps are running). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like read_electron_logs for logs or take_screenshot for visual data, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the debugging requirement.

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