GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it checks running status, reads logs, returns specific data (pid, running, log_file, tail), and handles failures with an error dict. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage constraints, details parameters with examples, and explains return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with essential information.

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 complexity (monitoring app status), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks details on error conditions beyond 'On failure,' and doesn't specify log file formats or access permissions, leaving minor gaps.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'pid' is a 'Process ID returned by ``app_launch()``' and 'lines' is the 'Number of trailing log lines to return (default 50).' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check whether a launched app is still running and read its logs.' It specifies the verb ('check' and 'read'), the resource ('launched app'), and distinguishes it from siblings like app_launch (which launches apps) and app_list (which lists apps).

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 usage guidelines: 'Only PIDs returned by ``app_launch()`` in this session are accepted.' This clearly states when to use (with PIDs from app_launch) and implies when not to use (with other PIDs or outside the session), differentiating it from alternatives like app_list.

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