windows_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and result ('Return all windows') but offers no additional context such as whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether it depends on session_id, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 unnecessary words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and it is appropriately sized for a simple listing operation. It earns a top score for conciseness despite being brief.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the session_id parameter, the meaning of 'windows', or the expected return structure. Given the low schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description should compensate with more context but fails to do so.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'session_id' parameter at all. The agent cannot determine what session_id means, its role, or how it affects the results. Since the schema provides no help and the description adds nothing, the parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('all windows of the tested 1C client application'). It is clear and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'active_window' by the scope ('all windows' vs. a single window). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself, so it stops short of a top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'active_window', 'activate_window', or 'wait_window'. No context about session requirements or intended use cases is provided. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description, which is minimal.

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