get_displays

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the tool does analysis, not just enumeration — it compares each monitor against its best supported mode and points out underperformance. It does not say how that judgement is surfaced (flag field, message, ordering) or whether it covers the whole machine or a single adapter.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the diagnostic behavior is placed last as the payoff. The first sentence is a long comma-separated field list that reads more like a schema dump than prose, but every item is informative and nothing is redundant.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the reported fields plus the comparison/flagging behavior. The main remaining gap is the shape of the returned data and how the 'below its best' finding is expressed, which an agent would still have to discover by calling it.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The description spends its wording on return content instead, which is the right choice here.

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 makes clear this reports per-monitor display data: name, GPU, connection, position, mode, refresh rate, native resolution, HDR and scaling. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_gpus or get_system_overview, though it never uses an explicit verb (e.g. 'list'/'report') and opens with a bare noun, 'Monitors:'.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though get_gpus and get_system_overview are plausible overlapping choices. The phrase about flagging a monitor below its refresh rate or resolution hints at a diagnostic use case, but that is inference rather than instruction.

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