openmausbot_cua_permissions_status

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to prove the absence of side effects. It adds value by enumerating the specific permission types covered (Accessibility, Screen Recording), which goes beyond the annotation title.

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 front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and scope with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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, read-only status tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is functionally complete. It misses only explicit usage context and the macOS framing, though the annotation title supplies the macOS context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema fully documents an empty property set, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 ('Report') and a specific resource ('Accessibility and Screen Recording permission status'). It also clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling status tools like cua_skills_status and cua_check_update by naming the exact permission categories being reported.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what conditions would make it the right choice. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and general context.

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