desktop

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It details the output contents (monitors, workspaces, windows with coordinates, active window, cursor) and implies it is a read-only snapshot. No side effects are mentioned, but the description is transparent about what is returned.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key purpose, and includes specific output fields followed by a clear instruction. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description adequately covers its role as an initial state snapshot. It explains output fields and usage sequence. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on when to refresh the snapshot, but overall it is complete enough.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. It provides valuable context about the output fields, meeting the baseline expectation for no-parameter tools.

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 it provides a 'semantic desktop snapshot' listing monitors, workspaces, windows with specific fields, active window, and cursor. It also instructs to 'call first' and act on addresses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like keyboard, pointer, or screenshot.

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 explicitly advises to 'call first; act on the addresses it returns,' establishing a clear sequential usage pattern. It doesn't specify exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different functions, making the context sufficient.

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