aia_get_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does establish that this is a read-style operation returning components, properties, and blocks XML. It does not disclose failure behavior, path/screen_name validity expectations, or whether any side effects could occur, though the read nature lowers risk.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence uses the verb 'Read' first, identifies the resource, and lists exactly what is returned. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 gives what it delivers (component list, screen properties, blocks XML) and the schema covers one of the two parameters. The only real gap is the undocumented screen_name parameter and the lack of explicit distinction from aia_inspect, but for a small read tool this is mostly adequate.

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?

Only the path parameter has schema documentation (abs/relative .aia file). The screen_name parameter has no schema description, and the description does not compensate by explaining what screen_name should be (e.g., expected format or valid values). The output content is described, not the input semantics.

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 has a specific verb ('Read'), a target resource ('one screen'), and enumerates the returned contents ('component list, screen properties and blocks XML'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the mutation-oriented siblings, though it leaves how it differs from aia_inspect implicit.

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 guidance about when to use this over aia_inspect or when not to use it. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned; usage is only implied by the word 'Read'.

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