list_windows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the read-only nature through the verb 'List' and mentions platform scope and returned data, but it does not explicitly say it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any permissions, accessibility limitations, or Wayland-specific caveats beyond the word 'accessible'.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs in the key context: platform coverage and returned fields. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level account of the return payload. It could be more complete around error cases, empty results, or output formatting, but it supplies enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already describes filter_title as an optional substring filter with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is required because the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('desktop windows'), and clearly states the scope ('all accessible desktop windows across Windows, Linux X11, and Linux Wayland') plus the returned data (window IDs, coordinates, geometry, process info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like window_click or window_send_key, which perform actions rather than enumeration.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Although siblings like capture_window and window_type are clearly different in purpose, the description provides no explicit routing guidance or conditions such as 'use this when you need to enumerate windows before targeting one'.

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