computeruse_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is an informational/help tool that explains usage, implying no side effects or mutations. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or that it returns static guidance, but the nature of a help tool is well conveyed, and the description adds value beyond the tool name.

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 most important directive ('Read this first') and then enumerates the key contents (workflow, rules, schema). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 help tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool explains and implies that it should be used as an introduction. The list of covered topics is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and decide to invoke it.

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, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is sufficient.

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: it explains how to use ComputerUse MCP tools, including the workflow, rules, and schema. It uses a specific verb ('explains') and names the resource (ComputerUse MCP tools), and it is clearly distinct from the sibling tools which are operational tools (start, observe, execute) rather than a meta-guide.

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 opening phrase 'Read this first' provides an explicit usage directive: consult this tool before using others. The description also states what the tool covers (workflow, coordinate rules, safety rules, action schema), giving context on when it is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the 'first' instruction implies it is a prerequisite.

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