build_desktop_next_step

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates 'read-only' (no side effects) and inputs, but fails to mention response format, performance, or any constraints. Lacks detail on what the tool does beyond building a report.

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 18-word sentence, which is concise but at the cost of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with key info but insufficient for a complex 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?

Given 9 parameters, 4 enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter effects, or provide enough context for effective use.

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 coverage is 0% and description does not mention any of the 9 parameters (mode, format, platform, etc.). No explanation of what each parameter controls, leaving the agent unable to set them correctly.

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 builds a 'read-only next-step decision report' for a local desktop agent, specifying the sources. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'read-only' and 'local desktop agent', but not all siblings are fully differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., build_agent_activity_report, build_desktop_diagnostics). The description does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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