list_windows

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real operational context: titles are untrusted screen text, and windows marked protected (terminals possibly hosting the caller) cannot be run_windows targets. That protected/untrusted distinction is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 target_id purpose, then progressively adds filtering and safety caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; the final sentence is slightly cramped.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers what comes back (target_id, ordering front-to-back) and the filtering/safety caveats. Complete enough for a one-parameter, read-only list 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden — and it does, explaining that title_contains matches by title *or process name*, which is meaning beyond the bare schema property.

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 ('List visible top-level Windows windows front to back') and even names the two secondary surfaces it includes (Progman, taskbar). It also declares the return contract — a target_id consumable by run_windows and observe_window — which distinguishes it from the sibling observe_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?

Usage is clearly implied: call this to obtain target_ids for run_windows/observe_window, which are named explicitly. What's missing is an explicit when-not or a stated boundary versus observe_window, which may also enumerate windows.

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