stage_get_screens

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

No annotations provided, and the description only implies a read operation without explicitly confirming safety, authorization needs, or potential side effects. Other behavioral traits are absent.

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?

Exceptionally short (one sentence) with no fluff. However, it could be more specific about what 'configurations' entails. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum: it identifies the resource. However, it omits context about related tools or return value characteristics, which is acceptable but not helpful.

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 no parameters, which meets the baseline of 4 per the rules. The description adds no param info because none exist.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('stage screens'), and scope ('all' with 'configurations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stage_get_layouts or stage_get_layout_map by focusing specifically on screens.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as stage_get_screen_layout or status_get_screens. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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