list_windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description's only behavioral contribution is the legacy/compatibility status, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about return shape or whether output matches list_apps exactly.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key fact (it is an alias, and of what) is front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the only information it carries.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool whose annotations fully cover the safety profile and whose schema is empty, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it. The only residual gap is whether it returns identical results to list_apps, which the agent must infer.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, leaving nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 identifies the tool only by reference: it is a 'Compatibility alias for list_apps.' The agent must open the sibling to learn what the tool actually does, and the name 'list_windows' pointing at an app-listing tool is potentially confusing rather than self-describing. It does at least pin the tool to a specific sibling, so it is not a tautology.

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?

Calling it a 'compatibility alias' implicitly tells the agent this exists for backward compatibility and that list_apps is the canonical choice, which effectively routes usage. It never explicitly says 'prefer list_apps' or states a when-not condition, so it falls short of the fully explicit 5.

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