register_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It omits critical details such as whether the tool is idempotent, what occurs on success (e.g., returns a screen ID), or error handling for invalid codes.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It earns a 3 as it is not verbose, but lacks necessary details that would justify a higher score.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not cover parameter explanations or behavioral context. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, required fields), the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should elaborate on parameters. It only hints at 'registration_code' by mentioning 'six-character device pairing code', but fails to explain 'title', 'description', or 'orientation'. This leaves agents guessing about required input.

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 specifies the action 'register a screen' and the unique condition 'using its six-character device pairing code'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_screen, update_screen, or delete_screen, which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Without context, an agent might not know if a pairing code is already required or what happens if registration fails.

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