computer.state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that setting includeUi=true returns an executable UI node snapshot and short-term ref, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what '运行能力' (running capabilities) entails. It is partially transparent but lacks completeness.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds a conditional detail. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is an example of efficient, well-structured writing.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to provide adequate context. It does mention the return type (UI snapshot and ref) under includeUi, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what '运行能力' means, how predictions work, or what the output looks like for other parameter combinations. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a complex state 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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a small layer of meaning by explaining the effect of includeUi (returning UI snapshot and ref). This justifies the baseline 3, as the description provides marginal value beyond the schema but does not comprehensively enrich parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: '获取窗口、焦点和运行能力' (get window, focus, and running capabilities), which is specific and actionable. It also mentions conditional behavior for includeUi. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like computer.inspect or computer.screenshot, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as computer.inspect or computer.screenshot. There is no explicit context, exclusions, or comparison to siblings. The only usage hint is implicit via the 'includeUi' parameter mention, but no when-to-use advice is given.

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