tool_list_displays

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only', which communicates non-mutating safety, and specifies the exact information returned, including the physical-pixel coordinate context. This is adequate for a simple list operation.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the output fields in a readable sequence. Every phrase earns its place, and the read-only note is a useful signal.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, has an output schema, and the description adds semantic meaning about the returned items (work-area rectangles, physical pixels, primary flag). An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The base baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing missing and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 states a specific verb ('List monitors') and resource ('monitors') and enumerates the exact fields returned (index, primary flag, device name, monitor and work-area rectangles in physical pixels). It clearly distinguishes from display-related siblings by scope and output details.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_get_window_rect or tool_cursor_position. The description implies a read-only enumeration use case but does not state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to this tool.

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