hide_headless_desktop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies the return value ('JSON {"ok": true, "restored": true}') and notes the parameter is 'for symmetry,' indicating it may not be functionally used. No contradiction 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 extremely concise: one main sentence plus an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the core purpose, then clearly documents the parameter and return value. No wasted words; every line adds value.

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?

This is a simple tool (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema provided but return documented in description). The description covers what it does, when to use it, what the parameter means, and what the return value is. Given the low complexity and presence of annotations, the description is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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 for the top-level parameter is 0%, but the description explains the parameter's purpose: 'the off-screen desktop name (for symmetry).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides a property description for 'name.' The 'for symmetry' note clarifies that the parameter is likely ignored or just for API consistency, which is valuable for 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 states a specific action: 'Switch the live screen back to the normal desktop after show_headless_desktop.' It uses a specific verb ('switch back') and resource ('live screen', 'normal desktop'), and directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool show_headless_desktop by referencing it explicitly.

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 for when to use: 'after show_headless_desktop.' It implies the tool is the inverse operation, giving a strong usage signal. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to show_headless_desktop suffices for a simple state-reversal tool.

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