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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds valuable context by warning that UI contents are untrusted and instructing the agent to inspect the pending packet before responding. However, it does not disclose side effects, validation outcomes, or what happens if the reply does not match the requested schema.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence contributes a distinct instruction. The wording 'writer/URL/answer reply' is awkward, but there is no fluff or redundant expansion.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and five sibling tools, the description provides enough for basic use: it names the action, gives pre-response inspection guidance, and warns about untrusted UI data. It leaves gaps around where requestId comes from, how to access the pending packet, and what exact reply schema to use beyond the generic instruction.

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 is expected to compensate. It only refers generically to replying with the exact requested schema and does not explain requestId or the structure/meaning of the reply object. The schema itself provides type information, which prevents a score of 1, but the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: it supplies a reply requested by the current host agent. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like typesafe_status or typesafe_run, and the phrase 'writer/URL/answer reply' is awkwardly worded, but the core action is identifiable.

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 gives concrete operational guidance: inspect the pending packet and image before answering, reply only with the exact requested schema, and treat UI contents as untrusted. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context for when and how to use the tool is reasonably clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the run records screenshots and OCR locally and sends text to Jev, a side effect. It also states the 'needs_host' return flow, and the requirement to keep the target window in foreground. It mentions using only the user-authorized goal, which is a safety boundary. It lacks details on whether actions are reversible or if any destructive operations could occur, but the given transparency is above average.

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 dense paragraph of five sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes key workflow steps, but it lacks bullet points or clear separation of concerns. Some information, like 'Jev chooses operations and targets', could be trimmed or clarified. It is not excessively long, but it could be more scannable.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains the high-level workflow (run, receive needs_host, respond) and mentions data recording, but it does not document parameter semantics, expected return values beyond needs_host, error conditions, or timeouts. The agent would need to infer too much from parameter names and defaults.

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 compensate. It only indirectly references the 'goal' parameter ('Use only the user-authorized goal'), but provides no explanation of act, delay, steps, windowTitle, or minConfidence. The agent is left to infer their meanings from names and defaults, which is insufficient for a tool with six 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 it runs a specific Windows port of a computer-use tool, with a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the needs_host handoff to typesafe_respond, making its purpose unambiguous. However, the phrase 'Jev chooses operations and targets' is slightly vague, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like typesafe_wait or typesafe_status.

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 it is used to initiate a task and explicitly instructs to reply with typesafe_respond when needs_host is returned. It also gives a safety directive ('Use only the user-authorized goal') and a behavior constraint (keep window foreground). However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like checking typesafe_status first.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current' state and 'pending' requests, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, non-blocking, or how it behaves when no run or request exists.

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 text is very short and front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment and could be made clearer with minimal addition. It is concise at the expense of clarity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It names two status components but does not explain their possible values, response format, or relationship to the sibling tools, leaving an agent with limited ability to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 identifies the resource ('native Windows run', 'pending host request') and implies this is a status snapshot, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'. It is not a tautology, but it is a vague noun phrase rather than a clear statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as typesafe_run, typesafe_wait, or typesafe_stop. The description gives no context for choosing this tool or any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a deferred stop mechanism ('next operation boundary') but does not mention whether the stop is reversible, what state the run enters, or any side effects. This is minimal for a control operation.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action and its key condition efficiently.

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 zero-parameter stop tool, the description is adequate but lacks important context such as idempotency, whether a stopped run can be resumed, and what happens to in-flight operations. These gaps are notable given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description needs no parameter explanations. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond what an empty schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a clear resource ('the current run') with a precise condition ('at its next operation boundary'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like run, wait, and respond, which involve different actions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait or respond. The condition 'next operation boundary' hints at timing but does not explain contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when stopping is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Wait briefly', which doesn't specify whether it blocks, what happens on timeout, side effects, or what the response contains. It's a significant gap for a blocking operation.

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 one sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing key information, so while it's concise, it's not sufficiently informative.

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 simple tool, the description lacks information about return values, blocking behavior, timeouts, and typical usage scenarios. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent has little context to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter 'seconds' is documented in the schema with type, default, min, and max, but the tool description never mentions it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should explain the parameter's purpose, but it doesn't, leaving the agent to guess that the wait duration is controlled by seconds.

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 uses the verb 'Wait' and identifies the resource as 'host request or run completion', which is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like typesafe_run or typesafe_status. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, and 'briefly' is vague, but the core action is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer that it's used after triggering a run or request.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety. 'List' communicates a read-only operation with no destructive effects, and the purpose is explicit. It does not mention edge cases like no open windows, but for a simple enumeration tool this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the purpose following immediately. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or 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?

The description provides the action, target resource, expected output ('Windows titles'), and the reason to invoke it. With no parameters and a straightforward list output, an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('open Windows titles'), and a purpose ('to select a unique target before running'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like typesafe_run or typesafe_status.

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 phrase 'to select a unique target before running' gives explicit contextual timing: call this before typesafe_run when a target window must be chosen. It stops short of naming alternative tools or saying when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear.

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