DesktopInsights

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and data scope. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that 'null' can be passed as an SDK value to find apps without that SDK type, mentions that developer filtering uses partial match, and notes the requirement for at least one filter. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with the core purpose, provides usage examples and scenarios, lists filter types, and ends with constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description does well by explaining filter types, usage scenarios, and constraints. However, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., what fields are included in results) or pagination behavior beyond mentioning limit/offset parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent to interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 16 parameters. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'all 11 SDK categories' and giving examples like 'Sentry' for SDKs, but it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool searches for desktop applications using specific filters (SDK usage, runtime, platform, developer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_apps', 'list_sdk_categories', and 'lookup_app' by emphasizing search functionality with multiple filter dimensions rather than comparison, listing, or single-app lookup.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use this tool (e.g., 'to find which apps use a specific SDK', 'discover technology adoption patterns', 'research a developer's products'), mentions the requirement that 'at least one filter is required', and gives examples of filter types. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on multi-filter search rather than other operations.

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