Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool evaluates and returns ok + per-condition detail, and mentions optional waiting, but does not disclose side effects, permission needs, error behavior, or what happens if conditions are not met within a timeout.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by return information. Every phrase contributes and there is no filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'mapped screen' is, what conditions are evaluated, how 'device' affects the operation, or basic behavioral context. The output schema covers return values, but input semantics and safety context remain missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 3 parameters. The description indirectly covers the 'screen' parameter via 'mapped screen' and the 'timeout' parameter via 'optionally waiting', but the 'device' parameter is completely unexplained, and no format or expected values are given for any parameter.

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 'Evaluate' and resource 'mapped screen', and adds that it returns ok + per-condition detail. It implies differentiation from generic look/screenshot tools by referring to a mapped screen, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 siblings like 'look' or 'screenshot'. The parenthetical 'optionally waiting' hints at a use case for waiting on conditions, but there is no when/when-not or alternative routing.

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