aia_add_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Add' which implies mutation, but it does not state side effects such as in-place file modification, backups, or validation behavior. There is no indication of permissions or failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the required target context efficiently.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple add operation, and the schema documents most parameters. However, since this is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, some behavioral context such as whether the .aia file is updated in place or whether the screen name must be unique would make the definition more complete.

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 schema covers path and title, but screen_name has only its type declared. The description adds little beyond the schema, although the tool name and phrase 'new screen' indirectly make screen_name self-explanatory. At 67% coverage, the description does not strongly compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a new screen to an existing .aia project.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like aia_create_project (creating a project) and aia_get_screen (reading a screen).

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 gives clear context by specifying 'existing .aia project,' which implies it should not be used for project creation. However, it does not explicitly name siblings or state exclusions.

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