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

No annotations exist, so the description carriers full disclosure burden. It states the tool 'Reads' data (implying no mutation), explicitly says 'Does not spawn, focus, or close tabs', and warns against reading session UUIDs aloud. This discloses its read-only nature and communication constraints. No contradiction with annotations (none present).

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 three to four sentences, front-loaded with the operation purpose, then usage, then exclusions, then behavioral rule. Every sentence servers a purpose and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally concise for the given complexity.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, included data items, non-behavior, and communication protocol. It could be improved by describing the return structure (e.g., is it a string report or structured object?) and clarifying whether companyId is needed for the operator-specific snapshot. Still, it provides enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it.

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?

Only one optional parameter (companyId) exists in the schema, with 100% coverage via its schema description ('FreedomOS company id to act within...'). The tool description does not add any interpretation of this parameter, such as when it is needed or how it relates to 'THIS operator'. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value for parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Read' to indicate a read operation, specifies the resource as 'Mac desk factory snapshot for THIS operator', and lists the included data points (ACP up/down, last launcher event, official workers vs leftover UUID/TUI tabs, Terminal fallbacks). This clearly distinguishes it from any get_* sibling tool since no other tool targets this exact factory floor monitoring context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a Foreman or voice CoS asks if the factory floor is up, whether a spawn went ACP or Terminal, or how many leftover grok-01a0 tabs sit on a job'. Also clarifies what it does not do: 'Does not spawn, focus, or close tabs'. Provides a behavioral directive: 'Speak speak_first; never read session UUIDs aloud'. No alternative sibling tool is mentioned, but the context is so specific that it stands alone.

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