pixera_list_screens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a safe read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or anything about rate/permission constraints — though 'List' makes read-only intent reasonably inferable, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource and carrying no redundant or filler text. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema describing the return shape, the description covers what is listed and where. The only material omission is guidance distinguishing it from pixera_list_screens_detailed, which would help an agent choose 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 takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty properties object with no arguments to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies nothing is required to scope the call beyond the current project.

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 (List) and resource (screen names) with a clear scope scoping ('in the current project'). The word 'names' faintly distinguishes it from the sibling pixera_list_screens_detailed, but the description never explicitly says what the detailed variant adds or that they differ.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'names' suggests a lightweight lookup versus pixera_list_screens_detailed, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (detailed, list_projectors, list_outputs).

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