ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends a prompt and gets a response, implying a read/write interaction, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Send a prompt to Claude Desktop and get a response.' It is front-loaded with the core action and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively. The conciseness doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'prompt' implicitly but doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters (prompt, conversationId, timeout, pollingInterval) or their purposes. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of coverage.

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's purpose: 'Send a prompt to Claude Desktop and get a response.' It specifies the verb ('send') and resource ('Claude Desktop'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_conversations,' which appears to be a different operation, so it doesn't fully distinguish from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_conversations' or any other context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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