appium_get_window_size

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the unit and use-case context but does not disclose return shape or orientation-dependent behavior; this is acceptable but not especially rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has a single optional parameter documented in the schema, and the description explains what it returns (width and height in pixels) and why it is useful. It is nearly complete, though a note about orientation or return field names would make it fully self-contained without an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the only parameter (sessionId) already explained as optional and falling back to the active session. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline for fully documented schema parameters.

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 tool retrieves screen width and height in pixels, naming a specific resource ('device screen') and unit. It is readily distinguishable from gesture/coordinate tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with appium_mobile_device_info, which could also expose screen-related info.

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 usage context: this is for calculating coordinates for swipes, taps, and scrolls. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but for a simple read tool the intended use is easy to infer.

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