get_display_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral transparency. It clarifies that the tool retrieves monitor-specific data (resolution, refresh rate) and provides a practical insight about stutter causes. It does not contradict any annotations, and the read-only nature is implied.

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 two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core function and adds a relevant practical note about stutter. Each sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the return content (monitors, resolution, refresh rate). It does not detail the output format, but the presence of an output schema likely compensates. For a simple read tool, this is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (monitors, resolution, refresh rate), going beyond the schema which only defines an empty object.

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 tool name 'get_display_info' is vague, but the description clearly states it retrieves connected monitors, resolution, and refresh rate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_gpu_info' or 'get_system_overview'. It specifically calls out the 'stutter' use case, making the purpose explicit.

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 use for diagnosing stutter due to refresh rate mismatches, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_gpu_info' for GPU-specific details). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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