stage_get_screens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't specify whether it returns real-time data, cached data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the configurations are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what resource is being retrieved but doesn't provide context about what 'stage screens' are in this system or what 'configurations' include. Given the complexity of the sibling tool list (media presentation/control system), more context about the domain would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all stage screens and their configurations', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from other stage_* tools that manage layouts or messages, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from status_get_screens which might provide different screen information.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like status_get_screens or stage_get_layouts. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools that might provide overlapping or complementary functionality.

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