list_startup_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what each entry reports: command, enabled/disabled state, whether the backing program is missing, and current runtime cost. It does not say whether output covers other users or requires elevation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource before the source list and the reported fields. It is dense with colon-separated clauses but every clause adds information. Slightly list-heavy phrasing costs it a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the reported fields. No parameters need explaining. Minor gap: it does not state scope (current user vs. all users) or ordering/format, which matters for a system-inventory call.

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 zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior, keeping it a pure enumeration tool.

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?

Names a specific resource (startup items) and enumerates the concrete sources it covers: autostart entries, systemd user units, and Plasma scripts. That detail distinguishes it from generic siblings like list_services or get_system_overview. It never states the verb or names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this to inspect what launches at session start. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_services or set_startup_item, and no mention that modification goes through the sibling set_startup_item. No prerequisites (e.g., root/system scope) are given.

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