geck_list_windows

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the read-only enumerative behavior and the constraint that only top-level windows visible to pywinauto are listed. However, it does not mention backend behavior, window visibility nuances, or other operational caveats, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope and earns its place entirely.

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 enumeration tool with an output schema, a very short description may be acceptable. Still, the lack of annotation coverage and unexplained optional parameters means an agent may not know which backend to use or how the title filter behaves, so the context is only minimally complete.

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 adds no parameter context. The names 'backend' and 'title_filter' give some clue, but the accepted backend values and how title_filter matches windows are not explained. The description should have compensated for the schema's lack of descriptions but does not.

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 'List top-level desktop windows visible to pywinauto', which identifies the action, resource, and scope. It is specific enough to distinguish from process-listing and focus-window siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with closer window-related tools like control_tree or focus_window.

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 offers no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as geck_control_tree, geck_focus_window, or geck_list_processes. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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