Desktop Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' implies a non-mutating read, but the description does not state that it is side-effect free, whether permission failures surface as errors or as data, or whether it must be called before other desktop_* tools. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'supported surfaces' clause is under-specified rather than wasteful.

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 diagnostic with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the three things checked (accessibility status, permissions, surfaces). It falls short only in not framing this as a prerequisite for the desktop_* action tools.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the description correctly implies no input is needed. Nothing further is required beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Check desktop accessibility status, permissions, and supported surfaces.' It clearly reads as a diagnostic/preflight tool, distinct from action siblings like desktop_click or desktop_launch. The phrase 'supported surfaces' is somewhat opaque but the overall purpose is recognizable.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a preflight check before desktop automation, but the description never says so.

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