get_ui_screens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return contents (image URLs and tags), but says nothing about pagination semantics despite a 'page' parameter, nor about result limits, auth, or whether results are cached/stale — all relevant for a listing tool.

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 sentence with zero filler; the resource, its scope, the payload, and the prerequisite are all front-loaded. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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, so the description's brief mention of image URLs and tags is the only return-value signal, which is thin for a paginated list. An agent must guess at page sizes, ordering, and whether further pages are needed.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the description adds real value by documenting the provenance of appId (must come from search_ui), which the schema leaves bare. The 'page' parameter's behavior and ordering are left to the schema, which only says '1-based (default 1)'.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the screens of one app/site', with scope narrowed to a single app/site and the payload previewed (image URLs, tags). It hints at its relationship to search_ui by naming where appId comes from, though it doesn't differentiate from download_ui or library_search, which also touch screen content.

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 parenthetical '(appId from search_ui results)' supplies an explicit prerequisite and call ordering, which is the key usage fact for this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for downloading vs. listing screens.

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