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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: 'Does not spawn, focus, or close tabs' rules out side effects, and 'Speak speak_first; never read session UUIDs aloud' discloses an important output/privacy constraint. This is the kind of context annotations alone would not convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence earns its place by adding use cases, boundaries, or communication constraints. It is compact, though it relies on domain jargon (ACP, TUI, grok-01a0) that is appropriate for the intended audience but not fully self-explanatory.

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 read-only snapshot with one optional parameter, the description covers what data is returned, when to use it, and what side effects it does not have. It does not describe the exact return format, and it does not repeat the companyId parameter, but the schema covers that and the tool's complexity is low.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, companyId, and the input schema already documents it fully with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed here since the schema carries the meaning and the parameter is optional.

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 opens with 'Read the Mac desk factory snapshot for THIS operator', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates the snapshot's contents (ACP up/down, last launcher event, official workers vs leftover UUID/TUI tabs, Terminal fallbacks) and the 'THIS operator' scoping clearly distinguishes it from broader factory or census tools.

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?

It provides explicit trigger conditions: '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.' It also states a boundary ('Does not spawn, focus, or close tabs'), but it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool to choose instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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