GhostDesk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it returns standard feedback (action, screen_changed, reaction_time_ms), explains what screen_changed=false means (text field not focused), and advises retry strategy. It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, but provides clear operational insight.

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 front-loaded with core purpose, followed by return details and troubleshooting advice. Every sentence earns its place: no fluff, efficient structure, and 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 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, return format, and usage advice. It could mention error cases or limitations, but covers key aspects for a text-input tool. Slightly incomplete but mostly sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'text' parameter, but implies it through 'Type text' and handling details (Unicode, newlines, tabs). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though not fully explicit. For 1 parameter, this is adequate.

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: 'Type text' with specific capabilities (handles Unicode, newlines, tabs). It distinguishes from siblings like key_press (single key) and clipboard_set (copy-paste), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 usage context through the screen_changed feedback advice: use when a text field has focus, and click first if not. It doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like key_press or clipboard_set, nor provide exclusions. Guidance is practical but not comprehensive.

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