Get computer state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost profile ('Cheap') and that no image data is returned, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the target machine must be reachable. The read-only nature is only implied by 'get'.

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 terse sentence fragment, front-loaded with the cost characteristic and the returned fields, with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the return contents, covering the main gap. It omits any mention of the target parameter's behavior or error conditions, but for a read-only state probe that is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested target object is self-documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, default, or target-selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific operation and enumerates exactly what state is returned (screen info, frontmost app, windows, capabilities), so the agent knows the payload without opening a schema. The explicit 'No screenshot' clause cleanly distinguishes it from the computer_screenshot sibling.

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?

'Cheap' and 'No screenshot' imply the tradeoff against pixel-capturing siblings, but the description never states when to prefer this over computer_inspect or computer_screenshot, nor does it name an alternative. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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