trmnl_get_display

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully resolves the tension between the "get" name and the non-read-only annotation by stating "Changes remote state or starts work," but it never says what state changes (advancing the playlist, logging device metrics) or what the response looks like.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, but two of the three lines are low-value: restating the HTTP endpoint (already implied by the name) and a generic authorization boilerplate sentence.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation in the description, an agent has no idea what this returns (image markup? JSON payload? headers?) or how the headers drive the response. For a state-mutating device-facing endpoint, the description leaves most of the calling contract unexplained.

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 50% and the description mentions neither the nested headers object (RSSI, Width, Height, Battery-*, etc.) nor the profile parameter. The nested headers block carries all device identity/metric meaning, and the description adds nothing to help an agent know which headers matter.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Fetch the next screen") and names the underlying endpoint (TRMNL GET /api/display). The "next screen" phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling trmnl_get_current_screen, though it never says which device's next screen or what a screen contains.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as trmnl_get_current_screen or trmnl_start_refresh. "Run only within the user-authorized scope" is an authorization caution, not usage selection guidance.

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