desktop_config_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the output is desensitized (removes sensitive data). However, it does not mention other important traits such as read-only behavior, performance characteristics, or failure modes. For a simple no-parameter tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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, front-loaded sentence. It contains no filler and every word is informative. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and a key trait (desensitization), but does not hint at the return format or structure of the summary. For a tool that provides configuration data, additional context about the output would improve completeness.

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 and no input schema beyond an empty object. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 applies since schema coverage is effectively 100% and no parameter documentation is required.

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 returns a desensitized configuration summary for troubleshooting the desktop MCP environment. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('configuration summary'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'desktop_health_detail' or 'desktop_tool_catalog'.

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 troubleshooting ('方便排查桌面 MCP 环境'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. Usage context is only implicit.

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