list_windowsGet an overview of open image windows with details on size, color space, bit depth, file path, linear guess, astrometric solution, and mask. Quickly identify active images and their properties.
Open image windows/views: id, size, colour space, bit depth, file path, linear guess, astrometric solution, mask.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only/non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete return contract by naming the fields provided (linear guess, astrometric solution, mask, etc.), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not discuss edge cases like no open windows, but that is a modest gap for a no-argument read-only tool.
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 very short with no redundant words or filler. However, the opening fragment is grammatically ambiguous, sacrificing clarity for brevity, so it is not a perfect 5.
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 parameterless, read-only list operation, the field list plus annotations give an agent most of what it needs. The main omission is an explicit statement that the tool enumerates all currently open windows/views, which would have removed the ambiguity around 'Open image windows/views'.
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 schema coverage is complete, so there is no parameter-semantic burden on the description. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 identifies the resource ('image windows/views') and the returned fields (id, size, colour space, bit depth, file path, linear guess, astrometric solution, mask), but it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return'. The opening phrase 'Open image windows/views' can be read as a noun phrase or as an action, which creates ambiguity and does not clearly distinguish it from open_image.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what conditions apply, or which alternatives to choose. Given many sibling tools (open_image, duplicate_window, image_keywords), an agent is not told why list_windows is the right selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.