Inspect a specific native window to receive a 60-second, single-use observation token for temporary monitoring of that exact window.
Inspect an exact native window and get a 60-second, single-use observation token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| windowId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — the token expires in 60 seconds and can only be used once — but says nothing about what the inspection actually yields or what happens with a stale/invalid windowId, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the token constraint is stated in the same breath as the action rather than buried.
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?
With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a return value that is an implicit handoff token, the description should explain what consumes the token and how the 60-second window constrains the next call. That linkage is absent, leaving the agent unable to sequence this tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required windowId, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Exact native window' hints that windowId must reference a live native window handle, but it gives no source for that id, no format beyond integer, and no failure behavior.
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 and resource ('Inspect an exact native window') plus the distinctive artifact it produces (a 60-second, single-use observation token), which separates it from desktop_screenshot/desktop_action/desktop_perform in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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 prerequisite for obtaining a windowId, and no statement of how this differs from or precedes desktop_action/desktop_perform. The only usage hint is the single-use token lifetime, which an agent must reverse-engineer into a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.