create_headless_desktops

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds specific behavioral detail with 'Existing names are reopened safely.' This goes beyond the annotations by explaining what happens on name collisions, and 'independent off-screen desktops' clarifies isolation semantics.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds necessary usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the schema fully describes parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and an important behavioral nuance. It could mention the count default or limits, but those are already in the schema, so the description is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema provides descriptive text for count, names, and prefix, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by explaining why 'prefix' and 'names' matter ('project/agent-specific ... when several agents share a Windows session') and how existing names behave ('reopened safely'), which is not 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create several independent off-screen desktops in one request.' It clearly distinguishes from the singular sibling 'create_headless_desktop' by emphasizing multiple desktops in a single call, and 'off-screen' differentiates from virtual displays.

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 provides clear context: 'Use a project/agent-specific prefix or explicit names when several agents share a Windows session.' This implies the tool is for multi-agent scenarios and gives naming guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'create_headless_desktop' or state when not to use it.

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