Inspect Linux desktop capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'This does not capture the screen or send input,' reinforcing no side effects, and mentioning 'safety warnings' as part of the output, which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope, while the second clarifies limitations. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description effectively covers all needed context: the purpose, what it detects, usage timing, and explicit non-actions. The output schema handles return value details, so the description is complete for an inspection tool.

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 schema coverage is trivially complete (100%). Description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds relevant context about what the tool detects and returns, satisfying the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('detect') and resources (Wayland/X11, screenshot/input backends, active window, safety warnings). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating what it does not do, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

'Call first' is an explicit usage instruction indicating this tool should be used before others to detect environment capabilities. The description also clarifies it does not capture the screen or send input, guiding users away from using it for those actions and toward sibling tools.

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