Computer Use Status

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover basic safety. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as what status values may be returned or whether this reflects feature availability, connection state, or something else.

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 very short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise: it repeats the tool name without explaining the actual meaning of 'status'. This is closer to a tautology than a value-adding summary.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of what the returned status will look like or what states are possible. A status tool needs at least a minimal explanation of what is being checked in order for an agent to interpret the result 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 input schema has no parameters, so the description is not required to document parameter meaning. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately matches the empty schema.

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 'Show Computer Use status' adds a verb but essentially restates the tool's title and name. It does not explain what 'status' means or how this tool differs from sibling tools such as get_app_state or list_apps.

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 guidance about when to call this tool, what it is useful for, or when another tool would be appropriate. The agent gets no help discriminating it from get_app_state or other sibling tools.

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