list_screens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true consequentially, covering the read-only nature of the operation. The description adds the project scoping detail but does not disclose pagination, result limits, or other behavioral traits that may matter for a list operation.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb, resource, and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the low complexity, one fully documented parameter, readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Return value details are already covered by the 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%, and the parameter description already covers requiredness, type, an example, and the prefix convention. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond saying the project is a scope for the list.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Lists all screens within a given Stitch project', making the tool's basic function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_screen by the word 'all', but it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative tool.

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 implies this tool should be used when an agent needs all screens for a project, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer list_screens over get_screen or list_projects. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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