Desktop List Windows

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it is a single sentence. It never states that the call is read-only/no-side-effects, whether OS accessibility permissions are required, or whether inactive/minimized windows are included — all material for a desktop automation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the return payload, with no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than disciplined terseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, but the undocumented 'app' filter and the absence of any usage or permission context leave the definition thin for a tool with a sibling cluster of eight other desktop_* operations.

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% for the lone 'app' parameter, and the description never mentions that an app filter exists, let alone its expected format (process name, bundle ID, window class?). This is a real gap an agent would trip over when trying to scope a listing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List all open windows') and previews the returned fields (titles, dimensions, window IDs), so an agent immediately knows what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like desktop_list_apps or desktop_find, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 at all: nothing tells the agent to call this before desktop_focus_window, or how it differs from desktop_list_apps or desktop_find. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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