Published RDS Desktops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the scope qualifier 'published' and explains the resource type, but does not disclose auth, rate limits, pagination, or return behavior beyond what annotations already imply.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then domain context, then use cases. No sentence is wasteful, though the domain-context sentence is more explanatory than strictly necessary for call selection.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what it lists and when to use it. It omits output/pagination details and explicit sibling routing, but those gaps are modest given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema fully documents limit, fields, and filter. The description adds no parameter syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List published RDS desktop resources') and clarifies what an RDS desktop is. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ras_pub_get_vdi_desktops or ras_pub_get_avd_desktops, so it stops short of the explicit sibling differentiation a 5 requires.

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?

It gives clear use cases: reviewing RDS desktop assignments and troubleshooting launch issues. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for VDI/AVD desktops, but the context is sufficient for a 4.

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