get_display_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns readable text and that it's conditional on text mode, but it doesn't state what happens if the C64 is not in text mode (e.g., error, empty result). It also doesn't describe the text formatting (e.g., line endings, color codes). This is adequate but not rich, and since the tool is a simple read, the lack of error handling details is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the action, the resource, and the condition in a compact form. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and when it is valid. The only missing piece is explicit handling of the non-text-mode case, but this is a minor omission given the condition is stated and the output schema defines the return format. Overall, an agent can confidently invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. No deficiency here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the current text screen') with a clear condition ('when the C64 is in a text mode'). This distinguishes it from siblings like capture_display (which likely captures regardless of mode) and get_display_state (which reports state rather than text). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'when the C64 is in a text mode' tells the agent when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., graphics mode). Still, the conditional is enough to guide basic selection, meeting the bar for clear context without exclusions.

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