get_screen_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get information' clearly signals a non-mutating read-only operation, and 'available screens/displays' adds scope. However, it does not describe the return format or what specific screen properties are exposed, which matters because there is no 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, tautology, or unnecessary detail. For a simple zero-parameter read-only tool, this is an appropriate size.

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 definition is adequate for invoking a no-argument tool and understanding that it returns display information. But with no output schema, it leaves the nature of that information vague, such as whether it includes bounds, resolutions, or display names.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline score for a no-parameter tool.

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 clear action and resource: it retrieves information about available screens/displays. It is distinguishable from capture, click, and window-list siblings because it is a read-only query, though 'information' is left somewhat underspecified.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need details about available displays rather than capturing the screen, extracting text, clicking, or listing windows. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like get_window_list or monitor_screen_region.

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