r7_desktop_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 'local bridge' dependency and that it reports live (as opposed to cached) state plus a security policy, which is real context. It stops short of saying whether the bridge must be running, what happens on failure, or whether it is strictly read-only.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the object being inspected. Every clause (live status, security policy, local bridge) 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic whose only dependency (the local bridge) is named, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at what the returned status looks like, but little else is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No syntax or argument context is needed.

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 (Check) and a specific resource (live connection status and security policy for open R7-Office Desktop windows). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like r7_desktop_exec (which acts) and r7_desktop_selection (which reads the selection), though it never explicitly names those 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this status check is or isn't appropriate, and no reference to the sibling desktop tools it might precede or replace. The scope is implied by the name but nothing routes the agent here versus r7_desktop_selection.

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