Desktop status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states 'read-only snapshot,' indicating no side effects or mutations. This is sufficient for a simple state inspection tool, though it doesn't mention any edge cases or potential costs beyond that.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential purpose ('read-only snapshot') before adding usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no 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 parameterless tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: the tool's purpose, the specific data it returns (monitors, workspaces, focused window), and when to call it. Minor omission: it doesn't describe the exact output format, but this is acceptable given no output schema and the simplicity of the tool.

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 the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed since the schema is empty and the tool takes no inputs.

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 states a clear purpose: a read-only snapshot of the desktop (monitors, workspaces, focused window). While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools it differs from, the content description (composite of desktop state) implicitly differentiates it from window-focused tools like window_list or workspace_layout.

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 explicit usage context: 'Call this before/after window operations to see actual state.' This tells the agent when to use it, but doesn't mention alternatives or scenarios when another tool would be preferable, leaving some ambiguity.

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