desktop_report

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals sanitization behavior, explicit exclusions (desktop content, paths, exceptions, action arguments), the 32-result cap, and non-actions (no files, uploads, replay). This gives the agent accurate expectations about side effects and output constraints without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the description is compact given the amount of detail. It is somewhat dense and run-on, but each clause provides decision-relevant information and there is no filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so by enumerating fields, exclusions, and limits. It stops short of specifying the exact JSON structure, and 'projected health' remains somewhat vague, but an agent can call the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 input schema already declares zero properties with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to explain. The description compensates by characterizing the report contents, which is the only relevant semantic information for this parameterless tool.

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 names a specific verb and deliverable: 'Return a sanitized bug-report JSON.' It enumerates the contents (environment/dependency versions, projected health, up to 32 recent operation IDs/methods/effects/timings, fixed error codes and semantic verbs) and states this is scoped to the MCP process, making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from likely sibling operations.

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 gives clear how-to-use context: supply synthetic repro steps separately and explicitly save/delete the returned report if needed, and it tells the agent what the tool will not do (no files, uploads, replay). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or define a when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rule, but the instructions are actionable.

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