get_desktop_state

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

The description implies a read-only operation by listing retrieved data, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or destructive potential. With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., 'read-only, no modification of state'), which is missing.

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 two sentences, efficiently listing the data points and usage hint without any fluff. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is fairly complete: it tells what the tool retrieves and when to use it. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., macOS accessibility permissions) or the format of the returned data, which would improve completeness.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with no parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. There is no additional information needed beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 (get), the resource (macOS desktop context), and lists specific elements (frontmost app, visible apps, Chrome tabs, window positions, screen resolution). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capture_screen, get_browser_content, and preview_file by focusing on overall desktop state rather than capturing or extracting specific content.

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 advises using this tool for a 'quick overview of what the user is looking at,' providing a clear context of use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, which would be helpful for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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