List screens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: the return ordering is front-first, the listed fields are included, and the scope is limited to screens. It repeats "Read-only" but still adds substantive context, though it does not discuss anything like pagination or failure behavior.

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?

It is two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The scope and ordering are front-loaded, followed by the sibling alternative, which is exactly the information an agent needs first.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: returned fields, ordering, and screen-vs-window scope. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed, and the empty schema is fully consistent with taking no arguments.

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 specific verb and resource ("List the open Intuition screens") and names the distinguishing scope: screens only, front first, with the listed fields. It explicitly separates this from amiga_windows, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening another 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ("Only screens") and names the alternative for the adjacent case ("for the windows on them use amiga_windows"). That is a clear routing rule between siblings.

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