computer_status

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing that waitMs waits up to 20 seconds without busy polling, and that includeObservation returns the latest interface state. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, both substantive, with the core purpose front-loaded and parameter behaviors in the second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only status query; the description names the returned conceptual groups (status, independent verification, step log, timings) and the two optional parameter behaviors. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the response shape could help, but the description is sufficient for correct selection and call construction.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic load: it explains that waitMs waits up to 20 seconds without busy polling and includeObservation controls return of the latest interface state. taskId is only implied as the task selector, but that is clear from the first sentence.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource: a task's status, independent verification, step log, and timings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on system health, screenshots, or actions. The object of the call is unambiguous.

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 identifies the natural use case – retrieving task status – and adds practical guidance on waitMs as a non-busy-polling wait and includeObservation for latest interface state. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list and clear scope make the choice reasonably clear.

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