List app windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description repeats 'Read-only' but adds real value beyond that: it discloses staleness semantics (openWindows is live truth, storeWindows 'may be stale') and reports unsaved-editor state. That staleness caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentence (plus 'Read-only') that front-loads the tool's purpose and then defines each returned field. Every clause carries information, though the backtick-heavy inline glossary makes it slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must and does explain the return shape: live page list with titles and hash routes, the persisted id map, the current window id, and unsaved-change status. An agent can act on this without further discovery.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description spends its words on return semantics instead, which is the correct allocation for a param-free tool.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precise resource 'the CyberBrick app's open windows', and it enumerates the three data sources returned (openWindows, storeWindows, currentWindowId). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like window_close or project_state.

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?

It establishes the key usage context by noting that storeWindows ids 'are what window_close accepts', which implicitly tells the agent to call this before closing a window. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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