get_startup_items

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying exact scan locations on each OS (macOS LaunchAgents/Daemons, Windows Run keys, Linux autostart), which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not mention potential permission concerns or output structure, but the extra platform details are solid.

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 three sentences, with the purpose stated first, then platform specifics, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description covers purpose, platform locations, and usage context. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 baseline 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on the platform-specific scanning behavior instead of parameter explanations, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 function with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('applications and services configured to launch automatically at startup/login'). It also provides platform-specific details, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling monitoring tools like get_cpu_usage or get_process_details.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use when the user asks what runs at startup or wants to speed up boot times.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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