signalgrid_launch_items

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining that Apple's sealed /System items are excluded, that items run at boot/login, and that a recently-modified oddly-named plist is suspicious. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized with a brief context explanation followed by parameter and return details. Every sentence contributes useful context without rambling.

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 list tool with no explicit output schema, the description covers the return format (markdown or JSON), item fields (label, scope, path, modified), scope enum values, and filter semantics. Combined with annotations, this gives the agent enough to understand behavior and output.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is well-described in the schema. The description largely restates the same parameter details (e.g., name_contains as substring filter, pagination defaults) without adding significant new meaning.

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 clearly states it lists third-party launchd plists in standard persistence directories, excluding Apple's sealed items. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on launchd persistence and malware signals.

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 gives strong contextual guidance (standard persistence, malware signal) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternative tools. This falls short of a 5 but is clear enough for typical use.

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