desktop_ask_cc

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions handing over a task but does not describe what happens afterward (e.g., execution, return value, side effects, auth requirements). This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool consequences.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it does not earn its place by providing sufficient information. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It omits return behavior, side effects, prerequisites, and any guidance on the many optional parameters. The tool's complexity demands a much richer description.

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 description must add meaning. It only implicitly covers 'text' by mentioning 'natural language task', leaving 6 other parameters (cli, terminal, session_id, project_path, open_if_needed, allow_frontmost) completely unexplained. This fails to aid the agent in parameter selection.

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 it is a voice-friendly entry point to hand a natural language task to Claude Code/Codex, which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cc_send_instruction or desktop_ask_cc_project, but the purpose is still specific enough.

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, nor are there any context or exclusion hints. The agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke this tool.

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