build_screen_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only: returns { command }', explains wait semantics, and differentiates parameterless vs parameterized effects. It does not discuss validation or error behavior, but the read-only and return-shape disclosure is solid.

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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information—commands, parameters, wait behavior, and read-only status. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers all effect types, parameter relevance, wait behavior, and the return shape ({ command }). Minor ambiguity: 'wait holds the event until it finishes' could be misread as applying to all kinds, whereas the schema restricts it to tint/flash/shake. Overall, it is complete enough for a builder tool with rich schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds command codes and groups parameters by kind, but the schema already documents per-parameter applicability (e.g., tint/flash color arrays, shake power/speed). The added value is marginal, not enough to raise the score.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('screen transition/effect event command'), enumerates the exact command kinds (fadeout/fadein/tint/flash/shake) with command codes, and explicitly mentions insertion via insert_event_commands, distinguishing it from other build_* sibling tools.

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 clearly frames the tool as a builder for insert_event_commands and explains which parameters apply to which effect kind, giving strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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