status_get_screens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it returns real-time data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the status information takes. For a status query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks context about what 'status' entails (e.g., screen states, resolutions, connections) or the return format. Given the complexity of screen status in a presentation system and the absence of annotations/output schema, more detail would be helpful for an agent to understand the tool's utility.

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, so the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, maintaining alignment with the schema.

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 action ('Get') and target resource ('current status of all screens in ProPresenter'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stage_get_screens' or 'status_get_audience', but the specificity is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'stage_get_screens', 'status_get_audience'), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons.

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