Published Desktops

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds some context by mentioning 'full desktops' and access verification, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specific usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is mostly complete. It could slightly improve by hinting at return format or data scope, but it adequately complements the structured data for this read-only listing 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('published desktop resources'), specifying these are 'full desktops available to users via RDS, VDI, or AVD.' It distinguishes from siblings like ras_pub_get_avd_apps or ras_pub_get_rds_apps by focusing on desktops rather than apps, and from ras_pub_get_all_items by being more specific to desktops.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'to review desktop assignments, check which desktop types are published, or verify user access.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer usage scenarios.

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