sassy_desktop_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: platform-specific behavior (Windows pywinauto UIA backend, macOS System Events with Accessibility permission, Linux unsupported error), the include_taskbar default behavior, and the requirement for a GUI session. It doesn't describe the exact JSON return shape, but the output schema exists and the description says 'lean JSON'.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers the parameter, platform behavior, prerequisites, and usage context. Every sentence adds information. It's slightly long but each clause earns its place given the cross-platform complexity.

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 read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers platform differences, prerequisites, and usage context. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens on headless hosts beyond 'return an error' (which it does state), and it doesn't detail the exact JSON structure, but the output schema covers that.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the include_taskbar parameter's default (False) and its effect ('filtering out taskbar entries'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property definition. The description could have gone further with more detail on what 'taskbar entries' means, but it's sufficient for a single boolean parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('visible open windows') with precise detail: title and absolute left/top/width/height coordinates spanning all monitors, returned as lean JSON. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sassy_screen_info and sassy_click by describing its role in the UI automation workflow.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it with sassy_screen_info to locate UI elements before sassy_click, or for a quick sense of what is open on the desktop.' It also provides platform-specific guidance (Windows vs macOS vs Linux) and prerequisites (GUI session, Accessibility permission on macOS), which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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