get_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval, the transparency is minimal.

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 sentence, which is appropriately concise for a simple GET tool. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simple structure and existence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks any usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, or context about how this tool relates to siblings like get_screen_playlist. The summary is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully sufficient for correct agent selection.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'screen_id', and the tool description does not provide any additional meaning about this parameter. It is unclear what values are expected (e.g., integer ID format, constraints). An output schema exists but does not inform parameter semantics.

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 'Get complete details for a screen' clearly specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_screens (which lists screens) and update_screen (which modifies). The verb 'get' and the scope 'complete details' make the purpose unambiguous.

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. It does not mention scenarios where a different tool (e.g., list_screens, get_screen_playlist) would be more appropriate. The sentence is too terse to convey usage context.

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