kde_desktop_observe

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: image content is only present 'when Spectacle is available', signalling a conditional capability. It does not say whether snapshot capture is slow, whether the data can go stale, or what happens with the heavily restricted session selector.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the payload contents come first and the Spectacle condition trails correctly as a caveat. Slightly dense phrasing ('screenshot metadata/image content when Spectacle is available') keeps it from being maximally crisp.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does so by enumerating the four payload families the snapshot returns. For a read-only observation tool this is close to sufficient; only volatility/freshness semantics and any size or latency caveats are left implicit.

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 100% and the single 'session' parameter is documented there, including the pattern and the 'user-desktop' opt-in semantics, so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds nothing about the session selector or its safety implications, so only the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return a fresh desktop snapshot') and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: windows, logical display geometry, pointer/focus context, and screenshot metadata/image content. This makes its composite scope distinguishable from narrower siblings such as kde_window_list or kde_display_list, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. An agent must infer that this is a broad 'grab everything at once' call versus issuing several targeted reads (kde_window_inspect, kde_display_list, kde_pointer_position), and nothing warns about cost or repeated polling.

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