Read the current floating mini-screen content, including visibility, title, source, text, and progress. Use it to inspect on-screen status without modifying it.
悬浮小屏当前内容（是否显示、标题、来源、文字、进度），只读
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral fact — 只读, i.e. non-mutating — and lists the observable content, which is real value. It says nothing about behavior when no mini-screen is present, whether stale values are returned, or how the progress value is scaled.
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 compact line with zero filler, and the field enumeration is front-loaded inside the parenthetical. It is dense and readable, though the missing verb makes it read more like a label than an instruction.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information, and it does list the returned fields. However, it gives no shape for the response (field names, types, how progress is represented), which matters precisely because there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 explain; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list actually describes the response rather than inputs, which is a reasonable use of the space.
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 names a specific resource (悬浮小屏, the floating mini-screen) and enumerates exactly what it reports: display state, title, source, text, progress. That is concrete enough to distinguish a status read from the sibling ACTION_MINI_SCREEN controller, but the sibling is never named and the phrasing is a noun phrase rather than a verb, so differentiation is inferential.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative ACTION_MINI_SCREEN (which presumably sets the mini-screen). The only hint is the trailing 只读, which implies 'use this instead of the control action when you only need state', but the agent must infer that itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.