Startup Programs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral disclosure: startup command lines are intentionally omitted, which tells the agent what data will be missing from the result.

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 sentences, no waste, scope front-loaded and the data-omission caveat placed second. Every clause earns its place.

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 shapes need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Scope and the command-line omission are stated; the only real gap is that the limit parameter and its effect are left entirely undocumented.

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 single parameter (limit, max 300) has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned at all in the description. With low coverage the description should compensate, but it says nothing about pagination or result-size control.

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 (inventory) and resource (Windows startup registrations, Linux systemd/XDG startup entries), and disambiguates by platform. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like scheduled_tasks, list_services, and installed_software.

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?

Usage is implied by the platform-scoped resource but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is named for overlapping cases such as scheduled_tasks.

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