List desktop windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the behavioral scope ('top-level') and the exact data returned (title, PID, handle, position, size, minimized state), which is useful since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and expected output fields. The second sentence adds a practical usage tip without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core output and usage rationale. However, it omits the meaning of includeHidden, which affects how the agent should invoke the tool. Overall, it's mostly complete but with a small gap.

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 only parameter, includeHidden, is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's effect. Although the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of explicit guidance leaves a semantic gap.

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 tool lists 'top-level Windows desktop windows' and enumerates the exact returned fields (title, process ID, handle, position, size, minimized state). It also distinguishes from sibling window_control by explicitly noting its purpose is to 'target window_control reliably.'

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to target window_control reliably,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't list explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the purpose distinct enough.

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