desktop_result

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds useful behavioral context: results are durable and content-free, and images, text, and accessibility content are never persisted. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but it meaningfully clarifies what the tool will and will not return.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the key content-exclusion detail. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the important non-obvious behavior: status is durable and content is not persisted. Missing usage and action_id guidance keep it from being fully complete, but the essential call context is present.

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%, and the description never mentions the sole required parameter, action_id. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not explain where the action_id comes from or what format it uses, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve ... action status.' The 'durable, content-free' qualifier narrows the purpose further. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as desktop_action, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose. The name and description imply it retrieves status for a previously run action, but that workflow is left to inference.

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