window_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description explicitly scopes behavior to *visible* windows, which informs the agent that hidden or minimized windows may not be included. It does not mention permissions or failure behavior, but for a simple list operation this is reasonable.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action, scope, and output fields; the second provides the practical purpose. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the output fields and a use case. A minor gap is that it does not describe the exact return format (e.g., array ordering or OS permission requirements), but those are low-stakes for this kind of tool.

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 has zero parameters and the schema fully defines that, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description still adds value by enumerating the output fields, which indirectly tells the agent what data it will receive.

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 the specific verb 'List' and names the resource ('visible windows on screen'), then enumerates the returned fields: app name, window title, position, size, and process ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling manipulation tools such as window_focus, window_resize, and window_close, and even from apps_list.

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 gives concrete use cases: understanding what is currently open and finding window IDs for screenshots. It does not explicitly contrast against related tools like apps_list or the window_* commands, so it stops short of a full 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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