fiji_ui_windows_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that windows are 'visible' and that the ABBA window title starts with its atlas, which is helpful context but does not disclose anything richer (e.g. ordering, pagination, or behavior when no windows exist).

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the primary action, with the ABBA detail following as secondary context. It is marred slightly by a missing period between 'modality' and 'The ABBA window's title', which makes the sentence run on and briefly blurs where the enumeration ends.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the per-window fields (titles, classes, bounds, active state, modality). Combined with the ABBA title convention, an agent has enough to call and interpret this zero-parameter read tool, though richer detail on result ordering or empty-state behavior is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics the description could clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List visible AWT and Swing windows', and enumerates what each entry contains (titles, classes, bounds, active state, modality). It distinguishes itself implicitly from fiji_ui_dialogs_read by scoping to AWT/Swing windows, though it never names the sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as fiji_ui_dialogs_read or abba_window_view. The ABBA title-prefix note gives a useful hint for interpreting results, but not for deciding when to call the tool.

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