desktop_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the phrase "without inspecting the host desktop" usefully clarifies that this is a static/introspective report with no host probing. However, it says nothing about cost, freshness, or scope of the reported capabilities, and there is an output schema so return-value details are not required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The qualifier "actual" and the no-inspection clause both do work, though the phrasing is slightly dense for what is a simple introspection call.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the structural side is well covered. What is missing is the decision context: when this belongs in a workflow and how it differs from desktop_discover, leaving a real ambiguity given the sibling set.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 verb (report) and object (backend support and restrictions) are present, but "actual backend support and restrictions" is abstract about what is actually returned, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling desktop_discover, which plausibly covers overlapping ground.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus desktop_discover or the task/action tools. The likely intent (check what the backend supports before invoking an action) must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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