desktop_exec

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

The description adds meaningful operational context beyond the annotations: the environment is persistent across calls, desktop and display(image) are preloaded, and w.observe() is needed to obtain UI evidence. This is useful behavior disclosure that is not present in the schema or annotations. It aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation by implying the execution can change the desktop state, and there is no contradiction.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids filler. Each sentence adds useful information, though the final 'See server instructions' clause is a deferral rather than self-contained content. Overall, it is efficiently structured.

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?

The tool is complex (persistent Python desktop automation) yet has no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and minimal annotation depth beyond a destructive hint. The description leaves key gaps: return value behavior, how to structure code, what 'persistent' means across invocations, and how the preloaded objects work. 'See server instructions' shifts essential invocation details elsewhere, making the definition incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not directly explain the 'code' or 'timeout' parameters. It hints that code should use preloaded objects and batch actions, but it does not specify expected syntax, output, or timeout behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 'Run persistent Python desktop automation,' a specific verb and resource that clearly establishes this as the execution entrypoint among its siblings (status, observe, cancel, reset). It goes beyond a tautology and gives the agent a concrete action. It could be slightly more explicit about what desktop automation encompasses, but it is distinguishable from the related 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?

The description offers usage guidance such as 'Batch actions, verify the result, and call w.observe() to return UI evidence,' which implies a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose desktop_exec over desktop_observe, desktop_status, or the other siblings, nor does it discuss limitations or alternatives. The reference to server instructions pushes important decision-making outside the definition.

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