create_headless_desktop

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that apps have a real GUI, never appear on the visible desktop, and can be captured. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; description aligns and enriches this without 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 and well-structured with a clear summary, explanation, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value with no redundant content.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, and return format adequately. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and potential edge cases, but for a simple creation tool with strong annotations and an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description says 'params (HeadlessDesktopInput): desktop name', which is misleading because params is a wrapper object containing a name field, not the name itself. Schema coverage is low and the description fails to clarify the nested object structure, potentially causing incorrect invocation.

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 specifies the action: creating an off-screen Win32 desktop for running GUI apps invisibly. It distinguishes this from visible desktop environments and explains the 'headless but with GUI' mode, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need GUI apps to run and be automatable/capturable via PrintWindow without appearing on the visible desktop. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, though sibling tools like create_virtual_display exist.

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