GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it scans .desktop entries in /usr/share/applications/, returns a list of dicts with name and exec fields, and clarifies that exec is used with app_launch(). This covers the operational scope and output format well for a read-only tool.

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 efficiently structured with three paragraphs: purpose, usage guidelines, and return format. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function and remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and details the return structure. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to fully document return values, but it still provides helpful semantics for the fields.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description focuses on the tool's function and output instead.

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 specific action ('Return installed GUI apps') and resource (GUI apps from .desktop entries). It distinguishes itself from siblings like app_launch (which launches apps) and app_status (which checks status), establishing a unique purpose for listing applications.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'before choosing which app to use for a task, or after installing new software during the session.' This gives clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like app_status for checking if an app is already running.

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