Monitor panel state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Read', which signals a non-destructive operation, and states the output is 'structured JSON', setting expectations for the return format. It lists the content categories, making the behavior transparent for a simple read tool. It does not mention potential errors or side effects, but for a read operation this is minor.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read Omarchy's monitor panel protocol') and then lists the relevant fields. There is no extraneous information – every word earns its place. It is both concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a thorough overview of the returned data (brightness, display state, mirroring, scaling, geometry). This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it could optionally mention whether the JSON has a specific nesting or if any fields are optional. Overall, it is complete enough for a read-only status tool.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics as none exist.

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 ('Read') and a clear resource ('Omarchy's monitor panel protocol') and enumerates the exact data fields it returns (brightness, displays, mirroring, scaling, geometry). This distinctly separates it from sibling read tools like `system_info` or `hypr_status`, which cover broader system state.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for reading monitor panel state, implying it should be used when that information is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or situations where a different tool (e.g., `brightness_display` for adjusting brightness) would be more appropriate. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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