Get Desktop Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the useful note 'No permission required,' which goes beyond the annotations. It also transparently lists the data returned. No contradiction with 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and lists content in a compact, readable manner. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or bloat.

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 the low complexity (no parameters, read-only annotations) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. It could be more explicit about whether 'screen layout' applies to all monitors or the primary display, but the overall scope is clear enough 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and trivially covered. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('desktop info'), and enumerates the exact content: screen layout frames, visible frames, scale factors, system appearance, and cursor position. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_monitors or system_info by its comprehensive scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when desktop-wide layout, appearance, or cursor info is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the detailed content makes the use case obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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