mirror_monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and closedWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether mirroring persists across reboots, what happens to the target's existing layout/workspaces, or how to undo. For a display-configuration mutation, that is a meaningful 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?

A single six-word sentence with the verb and both operands front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than crispness.

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 system-mutating display tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining effects, the description should say what changes, whether it is reversible, and how it interacts with workspaces. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of the call.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented as monitor names, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no extra detail such as name format or how to discover valid names via list_monitors.

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 ('Mirror one monitor to another'), which distinguishes it from adjacent siblings such as set_monitor_scale, move_workspace_to_monitor, and enable_monitor. It is slightly ambiguous whether this is display duplication or workspace mirroring, but the monitor-domain sibling set makes the intent readable.

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 gives no conditions for when to use this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., both monitors must be enabled), and no note on how to revert the mirroring. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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