computer.backend_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates the tool's scope: reporting health/availability of named backends, security settings, and emergency-stop state. The wording 'Report' strongly implies a read-only diagnostic operation, though it does not specify the output format or whether any side effects occur.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Report health/availability') and then efficiently enumerates the specific categories covered. Every part adds useful information; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description provides a strong overview of what is reported: backend health/availability, security settings, and emergency-stop state. It could be more complete by specifying the output shape or possible status values, but given the tool's simplicity, the coverage is adequate.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the report contains rather than parameter handling.

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 specific verb ('Report') and resource ('health/availability of every backend') and enumerates the backend types plus security settings and emergency-stop state. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling action-oriented tools like computer.click or computer.type, which perform operations rather than report status.

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 implies a diagnostic use case: checking backend health/availability, security settings, and emergency-stop state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any alternative tools, though none of the siblings appear to be direct substitutes.

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