List Windows

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds that the listing is scoped to an application, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the returned list is sorted, whether hidden windows are included, or what happens when the app has no windows.

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, tight sentence with no wasted words. It gets the core behavior across immediately and is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema, so the description should say more about the expected return shape or contents of the window listing, and it does not. The missing app_ref semantics also leave the overall calling context incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter app_ref is completely undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'application', implying app_ref identifies an application, but it does not specify whether this is a name, ID, path, or process handle, leaving the agent without sufficient parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action, 'List windows', and scopes it to 'an application', making the tool's purpose clear. It is also distinguishable from sibling tools like list_apps, which lists applications rather than windows.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as whether to use it after open_application or how it relates to get_app_state. The only contextual hint is the app requirement, which is not enough to guide an agent through tool selection.

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