computer_permissions

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or potential errors. The description adds little beyond the tool's name, leaving behavior largely implicit.

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 exceptionally concise, with a one-line purpose and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No waste 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and parameter source. It does not detail the returned envelope's structure beyond 'permission status', but the output schema likely covers that. Some context about prerequisites or error cases is missing, but overall it is adequate.

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 schema provides no description for the parameter (0% coverage), but the description explains serialno as the computer device serialno and directs users to list_devices as its source. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it lacks format or example details.

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 retrieves the desktop-control permission status. The verb 'Get' specifies the action, the resource is explicit, and it stands apart from sibling tools which are all action-oriented (clicks, taps, navigation). It is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before desktop-control actions or under what conditions. There are no sibling permission tools, so it may be self-explanatory, but the lack of explicit usage context weakens this dimension.

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