get_window_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the prerequisite tooling ('Requires xdotool + a launched display'), the native-vs-protocol distinction, and the conditional shape of each entry ('geometry {x,y,width,height} unless geometry=false'). It does not say what happens on a missing/invalid display or whether the call is strictly side-effect free, but the enumeration framing makes the read-only nature clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and organized as purpose → usage → return shape → sibling disambiguation. It is dense and slightly parenthesis-heavy, but no sentence is wasted and the most decision-relevant content (OS-level vs protocol-level) comes early.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, scoping, parameter meaning, and sibling disambiguation. It redundantly restates the return shape despite an output schema existing, but that costs little and the definition leaves an agent with nothing blocking a correct call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone would leave both parameters opaque; the description compensates by giving the origin and format of 'display' (from launch_test_client(display=…) status, e.g. ":101") and the effect of 'geometry=false'. This is real added meaning, though it stops short of stating validation or error behavior for a wrong display string.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Enumerate the visible OS windows on the TestClient's X display natively') and pins the scope to the OS/X level rather than the protocol level. It explicitly names the sibling it is not, get_window_list_testclient, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the concrete use case ('see what the client has open — main window, an opened list/card, a modal dialog') and routes follow-up work to the right siblings ('address an individual window programmatically with activate_window / close_window'). It also states the prerequisites (xdotool plus a launched display), so the when-to-use conditions are explicit.

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