list_windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a JSON list sorted by area descending, filters out unmapped orphan windows and hidden helper windows, and returns JSON text. This is substantial behavioral context for a read-only listing tool, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication (likely irrelevant). Score 4 is appropriate.

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, dense sentence that packs purpose, output format, sorting, filtering, and use case without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action. It could be slightly more readable but is still efficient, so a 4 is justified.

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?

The presence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values in detail, and it does list the fields. However, the 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented, and there is no mention of error conditions or edge cases. For a tool with a single optional parameter, this is a notable omission, making the description 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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'limit' with a default of 100, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions 'limit' or explains its purpose or effect. Since the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, the parameter semantics are poorly conveyed. A score of 2 reflects this gap.

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 lists visible windows with a specific output structure (id, title, pid, x, y, w, h, area) and indicates sorting and filtering. It gives a concrete use case (distinguishing same-name windows, locating target window id). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_screen_layout or get_ui_tree, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides clear context: it is meant for identifying windows by id and replacing multiple shell queries. It implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions', which is a 4.

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