security_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral guarantee that annotations cannot express: the response will not leak secrets, which matters for a security-policy read.

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. The noun phrase names both the primary payload (security policy) and secondary payload (readiness diagnostics) plus the redaction caveat, all in one pass.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back at a high level and guarantees no secret leakage. It stops short of describing the shape or granularity of the diagnostics, but the core need is met.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the 100% coverage is vacuous. Baseline 4 applies and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('the active desktop-control security policy and readiness diagnostics'). No sibling tool covers security posture, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, though it never spells out what the policy fields or diagnostics actually contain.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many action-oriented siblings (computer, launch_app, screenshot), nor whether it should be checked before attempting desktop control. The only implicit cue is 'readiness diagnostics', which an agent must infer means a pre-flight check.

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