get_screen_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the value is physical vs. usable resolution, how rotation/orientation affects the result, or the shape of the return value, so an agent cannot anticipate the output beyond 'some number in pixels'.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted, though there is also nothing beyond the minimum.

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 simple read-only getter with 100% parameter coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It still leaves open what the return value looks like (e.g., width/height pair) and which resolution (physical, usable, orientation-adjusted) is reported.

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 single 'serial' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its default behavior when omitted. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but per the baseline rule full schema coverage justifies a 3.

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 screen resolution') plus the unit ('in pixels'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not reference any sibling, but none of the siblings (tap, swipe, screenshot, etc.) overlap with this retrieval, so the risk of misselection is low.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as screenshot or ui_dump, and no prerequisites or context (e.g., before computing tap coordinates). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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