desktop_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that the operation history excludes input text and screenshots, which is important privacy-relevant information. It could go further by describing what fields or limits the history includes, but for a simple read-only tool this is solid.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The primary behavior is stated first, and the exclusion detail is a single additional clause that earns its place. This is appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter tool.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns, when to use it, and what it deliberately excludes. It does not describe the exact shape of the operation outcomes or any history limits, but those are relatively minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 are zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the input schema carries no burden. The description adds context about when results are relevant ('after timeout/cancellation'), which is appropriate for a no-argument 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('recent operation outcomes'), making the tool's function clear. It also adds context with 'after timeout/cancellation'. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like desktop_report or desktop_doctor, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'after timeout/cancellation' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not mention alternatives or give negative guidance about when not to use it, which would have made it fully explicit.

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