get_window_title

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, confirming it's non-destructive. The description adds that it retrieves the 'Name property of the root window element', which is useful detail beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't clarify if the title refers to the native OS window title or the application's internal title, nor what happens if the window is not found or has no title. Since annotations already cover the main behavioral trait, the description adds moderate value here.

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 15 words, with no filler. It front-loads the action 'Get the title' and immediately specifies what that means. Every part is necessary.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the source of the title (root window element's Name property). The only minor gap is not clarifying the scope of 'current window' (e.g., whether it's the active window or the one associated with the current session/context). An agent might infer correctly, but explicit context would help.

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 input schema has no parameters and is fully documented (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'current window' implies the tool operates on an active context, which is reasonable. With zero parameters, the description doesn't need to add much, but it could clarify what 'current window' means (e.g., the active window in the session). The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description adds a small amount of semantic context, earning a 4.

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 it gets the title (Name property of the root window element) of the current window. The verb 'get' and resource 'title of the current window' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_window_rect, get_current_window_handle, etc.

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 usage by describing what the tool does, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_text on a specific element vs. this tool for the entire window title). No exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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