desktop_health

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it reports live state of the running shell, calls out the edited-extension-not-loading-until-login caveat, and exposes specifics like XTEST trap and AT-SPI counts. This gives the agent a concrete mental model of what the tool reveals without an output schema.

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 opens with the core question ('whether each mechanism is usable right now') and then delivers a compact, comma-separated list of specifics. Every clause earns its place, and the parenthetical about edited extensions is high-value nuance rather than padding.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the mechanisms covered, explains the kind of information returned, flags an important reload caveat, and even gives call-order guidance. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Per the zero-param baseline this is a non-issue; the description spends no unnecessary words on 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 states exactly what the tool reports: whether each desktop-automation mechanism is usable right now and what it will do, enumerating extension state, running shell methods, pointer control, counts, keyboard layout, and the XTEST trap. This clearly identifies a diagnostic resource and sets it apart from the sibling action tools like pointer_click or ui_find by framing it as an environment health check.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when something behaves oddly.' That tells an agent when to invoke it, but it does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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