get_display

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state 'Read back,' which discloses the read-only, side-effect-free nature, and lists the returned settings. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any edge behavior, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, then gives a compact enumeration of the settings. No filler, though the field list is somewhat detailed for a description whose return values are already covered by the output schema.

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-parameter getter with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. The output schema handles return values, so the description needn't explain them, though its enumeration is helpful redundancy. Lacks only usage context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description's enumeration of returned fields is about outputs, not inputs, so it does not add parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Read back the display settings') and enumerates the exact settings returned, making the scope precise. The read-vs-set distinction from its sibling set_display is inherent in the verb, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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 call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implicitly obvious from the name and the sibling set_display.

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