desktop_category_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full weight. It only states the return content but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, performance characteristics, or data source. Metadata like idempotency or safety 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 extremely concise: a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No superfluous words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple parameterless tool, but it lacks explicit details about the return format (e.g., list of strings, object). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the structure to avoid ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies that no input is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no incorrect or missing meaning for parameters.

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: returning general desktop capability categories, with specific examples. It uses a verb ('返回') and resource ('desktop capability categories'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like desktop_tool_catalog by focusing on abstract categories rather than tool listings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. Usage context is only implied.

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