list_windowsIdentify active user context by listing foreground and titled windows with process names and titles.
列出前景視窗與所有有標題的視窗（行程名＋標題）。輕量了解使用者正在做什麼。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_windows"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '輕量' (lightweight) which hints at low resource cost, and the verb '列出' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it never modifies state, how it handles errors (e.g., no windows), or performance characteristics. Since the actual behavior is limited to listing, this is a minor gap, but the description is too skeletal to fully convey behavior.
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 two sentences long, front-loading the core action ('列出前景視窗與所有有標題的視窗') and then providing a purpose ('輕量了解使用者正在做什麼'). Every word contributes to agent understanding; there is no fluff or redundancy.
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 the tool is a simple parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential info: what is listed (foreground window and titled windows) and the format (process name + title). It does not describe the exact return structure (e.g., array vs object) or edge cases (e.g., empty list), but these are minor gaps. The tool is adequately specified for its simplicity, though a bit more detail on the return format would improve completeness.
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 coverage is trivially 100% since the schema is empty. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters. The description adds no parameter documentation because none is needed; the tool is parameterless.
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 the verb '列出' (list) and the resource '視窗' (windows), specifying exactly what is listed: the foreground window and all titled windows, with process name and title. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_capture (visual capture) and read_clipboard (clipboard content), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context by saying '輕量了解使用者正在做什麼' (lightly understand what the user is doing), which suggests it is for monitoring/understanding user activity without heavy overhead. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like screen_capture or web_fetch, so while context is clear, exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.