pulse_desktop_observe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the implementation path and OCR fallback when accessibility bounds are missing, but omits permissions, side effects, output shape, latency, whether capture is read-only, and whether app focus matters.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this complexity, though some implementation detail could be trimmed.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It explains the capture mechanism but not what is returned or how app_id/application affect the observation.

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 0% for two parameters (app_id and application), and the description never mentions them. It gives no meaning, defaults, or targeting semantics, so the agent cannot tell what these parameters select.

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?

States a specific verb (Capture) and resource (active Linux desktop), plus supporting mechanics such as accessibility mapping and OCR fallback. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pulse_browser_observe or pulse_desktop_click/replay, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The phrase 'active Linux desktop' implies a desktop context, but the description does not tell an agent when to choose this over browser observation or desktop replay/click tools.

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