windows_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: only visible, top-level, native windows are enumerated, and the response carries process IDs and UI Automation refs. It does not state pagination or ordering behavior, but with no output schema the return-shape hint is valuable.

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 tight sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (visible, top-level, native, returned IDs/refs) carries information.

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 read-only enumeration tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is listed and roughly what comes back. The undocumented 'limit' parameter is the only meaningful omission, and safety semantics are already in the annotations.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The agent must guess that it caps the number of returned windows rather than compensating from the text; the description does nothing to fill 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (visible top-level native Windows application windows) plus the returned artifacts (process IDs, UI Automation refs). The scoping to 'top-level native' implicitly separates it from chrome_list_tabs/browser_tabs and from windows_snapshot, though it never names those siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as windows_snapshot or windows_action. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration step preceding an action.

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