desktop_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what the tool returns (environment, backends, safety limits) and is implicitly a read-only reporting operation. It does not mention side effects or error behavior, but for a simple info tool that's acceptable. It adds value beyond the empty schema by defining the semantic content.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage timing. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains zero fluff. Every word earns its place. Ideal length for a tool of this simplicity.

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 info tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does and when to call it. The agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect. No further clarification is required.

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 the schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage by default. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter-specific semantics, and none are present. There is nothing to improve here.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource: 'the environment, the chosen backends, and the active safety limits.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are action-oriented (click, type, etc.). It clearly identifies what information is returned.

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 explicitly advises when to call it: 'Worth calling once at the start of a session, or whenever something fails.' This gives clear timing context. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but given the sibling set is all action tools, it's obvious this is the dedicated info tool. Could be improved with a 'when not to use' statement, but it provides solid guidance.

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