List windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any limitations (e.g., sorting, live state, workspace scope). It adds some context by specifying the fields returned, but remains implicit about behavioral guarantees.

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 sentence that packs the purpose, the data returned, and a usage hint without any filler. Front-loaded with the action and resource, making it instantly scannable.

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 parameter-less listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (class, title, pid, workspace, geometry) and when to use it, leaving no gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. Per the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'all mapped windows', and enumerates the attributes returned (class, title, pid, workspace, geometry). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling window-related tools by being the listing operation that precedes actions.

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 explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use to identify targets before acting.' This gives clear temporal context. However, it doesn't name specific alternatives (like self_window_info for the current window) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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