show_headless_desktop

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context: the entire off-screen desktop becomes interactive, a non-dismissible banner with instruction and emergency exit appears, and that the tool is meant for human interaction. 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded. It starts with the primary action, then explains details in a structured manner. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description combined with annotations and output schema (described inline) provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description mentions 'desktop name and banner instruction' which covers two of the three parameters. However, it does not describe 'confirm_focus_disruption'. The input schema has descriptions for each property, so the description adds some value but is incomplete.

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 action: 'Temporarily switch the live screen to a headless desktop for human interaction.' It specifies the resource ('live screen') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hide_headless_desktop' by referencing it.

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 explains when to use the tool (e.g., for LOGIN or manual steps) and mentions the emergency exit and normal restoration via 'hide_headless_desktop'. It provides context but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other headless desktop tools.

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