get_current_window_handle

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

The 'readOnlyHint' annotation is true, which matches the safe, non-destructive nature of getting a handle. The description adds value by specifying the return type (hex HWND string) and an example, going beyond the annotation. With only 0 parameters and no complex behavior, this is sufficient disclosure. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence of 16 words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes an example. Every word is necessary, and there is zero wasted text. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool that only retrieves a string handle, the description is complete enough. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states the format and example, compensating for the lack of schema. A score of 4 accounts for the adequate coverage while noting that a more explicit mention of possible error cases (e.g., if no window is active) would push it to 5.

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?

There are 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the output is a hex HWND string with example format. This provides practical information that the schema alone does not (since the schema is empty). Therefore, a 4 is justified for adding clear description of the return value format.

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 ('Get the handle') and a clear resource ('current window'). It explicitly states the return format as a hex HWND string with an example, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not need to distinguish from siblings, as no sibling retrieves a single window handle without switching.

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 implies this is for obtaining a unique identifier of the current active window, which helps the agent understand when to call it (e.g., before window operations). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but the context of sibling tools like 'get_window_handles' and 'get_windows' provides implicit differentiation. A score of 4 is appropriate since usage is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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