list_headless_desktops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—the 'owned by this server process' scoping note is a small addition. Since annotations carry most of the burden here, a 3 is appropriate; the description confirms the read-only listing behavior but doesn't add detail about return format or edge cases.

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-sentence description, no waste, perfectly sized for a parameterless listing tool. Every word adds value, including the 'owned by this server process' qualifier which conveys an important scoping distinction.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema present and comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description is complete. The output schema handles return value documentation, and annotations handle safety semantics. The description only needs to state the purpose, which it does adequately.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the schema or description. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed for this operation.

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 'List all headless desktops owned by this server process' has a specific verb (List), a clear resource (headless desktops), and a scoping qualifier ('owned by this server process'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'create_headless_desktop' and 'list_windows'. A slightly higher score would require naming specific sibling alternatives or return characteristics.

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 conveys its purpose clearly but provides no exclusions or alternative tool guidance. With a large sibling set around headless desktops (create, close, show, hide, launch_on, list_windows), an explicit statement of when to use this versus related list tools would strengthen it. The 'owned by this server process' qualifier implies scope distinction from other listing tools, giving some guidance.

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