PolyScreen server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context about the tool's role as a post-reconnect registration check, but stops short of describing return shape or failure behavior (partially excused by the output schema).

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 short sentences with zero filler. What the tool returns is front-loaded, and the invocation cue follows immediately.

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?

For a zero-argument, read-only introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the returned fields, the safe/idempotent nature (via annotations), and the situation that calls for invoking 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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter text is needed or missing.

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 specific verb ('Return') and three concrete resources (package version, active profiles, exact registered tool list). No sibling tool exposes server/package metadata, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the mobile_* family.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call after reconnect to verify Cursor sees the full core surface.' That is a clear when-to-use signal, though it names no alternatives or when-not scenarios (arguably none exist for a zero-arg diagnostics tool).

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