List Windows desktop windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral scope beyond that: it lists only *visible top-level* windows, names the returned fields, and explicitly disclaims foreground control. It does not cover enumeration limits, ordering, or failure modes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with the core verb and resource front-loaded, and no filler. The second sentence is a useful constraint rather than padding, though it could have been folded into the first for tighter structure.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does disclose the return shape (title, PID, handle), so return-value burden is met. What is missing is any guidance on the two parameters, a minor but real gap for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about deviceId or deviceName. With two undocumented parameters, the description does not compensate for the gap; an agent cannot tell whether deviceId scopes the enumeration to a remote device or is optional/ignored when omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List visible top-level Windows windows' plus the returned fields (title, process ID, native handle). It also carves itself away from the foreground-control family, though it stops short of naming a specific sibling tool. Clear and actionable, but sibling differentiation is indirect.

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 clause 'does not claim foreground control' implies this is a passive inspection tool and hints that foreground_control_acquire is the alternative for control, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative is named. Usage is only implied, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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