pt_get_screen_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a non-mutating 'Get' operation, which is correct, but it does not disclose error conditions, requirements for an active simulator, or behavior when the UDID is invalid. Given the simplicity of the tool, the lack of detail is somewhat acceptable, but additional context would improve transparency.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (width and height in pixels) and the schema covers the optional parameter. It lacks a note about error cases or prerequisites like needing a booted simulator, but for a trivial read-only getter, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers the single optional parameter 'udid' with 100% coverage, explaining its default behavior. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'screen dimensions (width and height in pixels) of the simulator.' This is distinct from sibling tools like pt_swipe or pt_launch_app, and the inclusion of pixel units adds precision.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there are no direct equivalents among siblings, the description does not mention preconditions such as requiring a booted simulator or how to best utilize the returned dimensions. The agent must rely on the name and parameter schema to infer usage.

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