get_focused_monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what 'details' are returned, whether it fails when no monitor is focused, or how it resolves a multi-monitor setup. With no output schema, this is the main gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is not wasteful, though it is arguably undersized for a tool with no output schema.

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 trivial zero-arg getter with read-only annotations this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what fields 'details' returns or what happens in edge cases like no focused monitor. A brief mention of the return shape would close the loop.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly presents the tool as argument-free.

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 and resource ('Get ... monitor's details') and the qualifier 'currently focused' separates it from list_monitors or get_focused_window. However it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the name.

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 word 'focused' implies the use case (query the monitor the user is looking at, rather than enumerating all monitors), but no sentence says when to prefer this over list_monitors or what to do if no monitor is focused. Usage is only implied.

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