get_window_handles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves 'window handles for the current session,' but does not elaborate on return format, ordering, or edge cases (e.g., no windows). Since annotations cover the primary behavioral aspect, a 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two succinct sentences that front-load the core action and then provide usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage context adequately. It could mention that it returns a list of handles, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, this is a minor omission.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is warranted. The description does not need to add parameter semantics and does not attempt to.

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 clearly states 'Get all available window handles for the current session.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (window handles), and the scope (all available, current session). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_window_handle and switch_to_window.

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 includes a usage hint: 'Use when the app has multiple windows.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling list contains get_current_window_handle for single handle retrieval, which serves as an implicit contrast.

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