Check independent Windows desktop backend

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing a build side effect ('Builds the bundled helper locally if needed'), that it runs locally with standard Windows components, and that it reports interactive desktop availability. The build step sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint but is disclosed rather than hidden.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the scope exclusion at the end. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it checks, build behavior, execution locality, boundary), with minimal waste.

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 no-parameter-required diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and scope adequately; return-value detail is not required. It could be stronger by stating the expected usage trigger, but nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'root' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default-precedence detail beyond the schema's own note about MAXPLUS2_ROOT/discovery, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the MCP-owned Windows UI Automation/Win32 backend') and clarifies scope by excluding window manipulation. This distinguishes it from desktop_launch/desktop_action without opening their schemas, though it never names a sibling 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 negative boundary ('Does not launch or manipulate a MAX+plus II window') implies this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit 'use this before desktop_launch' routing or when-to-use statement relative to installation_status or capability_matrix.

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