get_display_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not explicitly promise no side effects, mention whether it reads current emulator state versus cached state, or disclose any behavioral caveats.

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?

A single, tight sentence leads with the verb and resource, then lists the returned components in a clear list-like structure. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

This is a simple no-parameter getter with an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter behaviors. The description plus output schema provide enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the description does not need to compensate. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters requiring explanation.

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 names a specific action ('Returns') and a specific resource ('display state'), then enumerates the exact contents: screen RAM, color RAM, graphics mode, screen memory addresses, and border/background colors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor_state, capture_display, and get_display_text.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as capture_display or get_display_text. The description implies its purpose by naming the return data, but it does not state use cases, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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