desktop_check_cc

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive check but does not disclose important traits such as session handling (session_id default) or any side effects. The behavior is partially clear but missing details.

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, making it very concise. However, it is front-loaded but omits necessary details, so while concise, it sacrifices 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 the tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's output format, how to interpret results, or how parameters affect behavior. Sibling tools add context but are not leveraged.

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 description adds no information about the two parameters (max_chars, session_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on their meaning or usage, making this dimension severely lacking.

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 checks what Claude Code/Codex is doing or stuck on, using a specific verb and resource. It somewhat distinguishes from sibling tools like cc_session_status by labeling itself as a voice-friendly entry, but lacks specificity on the exact output.

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 implies usage for quick voice-friendly checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cc_session_status or desktop_health_detail. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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