Get Desktop Status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavior burden and does it well: it discloses the three categories of information returned, which is the key thing an agent needs to interpret the result. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free or what it returns when no desktop session exists, leaving a modest gap for a zero-argument read.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads what is reported, the second front-loads the call-to-action. The parenthetical tool list is illustrative and adds informational value rather than padding; nothing here is redundant.

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 input schema is empty and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values; it only needs to say what the tool inspects and when to call it, which it does. The remaining gap is minor: it does not say how to interpret a negative result (e.g., no WM detected) when deciding which fallback tool to use.

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 takes no parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless probe and adds no misleading argument hints.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Desktop session diagnostics') and enumerates exactly what is reported: session type (X11/Wayland/headless), installed helper tools (xdotool/wmctrl/xclip), and available capabilities. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_screen_dimensions or get_active_window, though it never names an alternative 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?

'Call this first if desktop tools fail' gives an explicit triggering condition and ordering, which is genuinely useful agent guidance. It stops short of a when-not-to-use statement (e.g., that it isn't needed when input tools are already working), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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