desktop_tasks

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's main added value is the note that operator-enrolled live windows are included in the result. It says nothing about result size, whether enrollment flags are surfaced, or any limits — a modest but real addition over the annotations.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the key scope qualifier front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the input side is trivially complete. The only residual ambiguity is what scope "this client" resolves to and whether the list is paginated or bounded, which an agent may care about for large tenants.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is required and that the listing is implicitly scoped to "this client."

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List this client's tasks") plus a scope detail about operator-enrolled live windows, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like desktop_open_task or desktop_close_task. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 listing role implies when to call it (enumerating existing tasks before acting on one), but the description never says when to prefer it over desktop_discover or desktop_capabilities, nor does it state any precondition. Usage must be inferred from the name and the enumeration framing.

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