list_outputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list available outputs' with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, or other behaviors. This is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. No wasted words—every character earns its place.

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?

Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it could add context on what information the output contains (e.g., names, resolutions) or that it's a safe read operation.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable as schema coverage is 100% and there are no params to describe.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists Wayland outputs (monitors). The verb 'list' and resource 'outputs' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'take_screenshot' which captures an image.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the sibling is for capturing, the description doesn't provide context or scenarios, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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