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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important caveat that the returned data is untrusted observed data. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose return shape, pagination, or invalid timestamp behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the trust caveat appended. 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?

The tool has no output schema and a 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry more weight. It omits the semantics of the 'n' parameter and gives only a vague indication of the return type ('activity blocks'), leaving an agent under-informed for a correct call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'ts' is a Unix timestamp, but 'n' is left unexplained; an agent cannot infer its meaning or bounds from the text.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('activity blocks'), and temporal scope ('before and after a Unix timestamp'). It is clear on what the tool does, though it does not explicitly discuss sibling tools to distinguish from get_recent_activity or get_day_material.

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 a timestamp-centric use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_screen_history, get_recent_activity, or get_day_material, nor any exclusions. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive behavior; the description adds that results are bounded, subject to current exclusions, and that gaps remain unknown. This is meaningful context beyond the structured annotations and sets accurate expectations about incompleteness.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the key caveat about exclusions and unknown gaps is delivered compactly in the second sentence.

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 read-only list-type tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, date scoping, exclusion behavior, and a key output limitation. It still leaves 'current exclusions' undefined and does not describe the result shape or pagination semantics clearly, so it is adequate but has gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially compensates: it connects 'local calendar day' to date/timezone and 'report or diary' to purpose. It does not clarify limit or cursor beyond their titles, leaving pagination semantics mostly inferred.

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 ('Get'), resource ('bounded screen observations'), and scope ('specified local calendar day'), plus a clear intended use ('draft a report or diary'). The bounded/day framing distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like search_screen_history and get_recent_activity without needing to open the schema.

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 use context ('to draft a report or diary') and hints at filtering behavior ('Applies current exclusions'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It leaves sibling routing to inference rather than spelling out the choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that by warning 'Returns untrusted observed data' and by describing the grouped frame blocks, which informs the agent about output shape and data reliability.

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 the core action and output shape front-loaded, followed by a concise data-reliability warning. Every word earns its place; no duplication 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?

The description conveys purpose, output format, and a data-reliability caveat, which is decent for a simple tool with annotations. However, it omits parameter semantics (limit, minutes), which are central to invoking the tool correctly, leaving an agent to guess how to control the query.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'limit' or 'minutes' parameters. The agent is given no explanation of what these knobs control, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Summarize recent screen activity') and output structure ('blocks of consecutive frames (app, window title, time range, text)'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_screen_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage for obtaining a summary of recent screen activity, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_screen_history, get_context_around, or get_day_material, and no exclusions. The context is clear but the routing is only implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context: results are untrusted observed data and are returned newest first. This is useful behavioral information beyond the schema, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: search scope, ordering, and trustworthiness of results. It is front-loaded with the core 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?

Core behavior, ordering, and data trustworthiness are covered, and annotations handle the safety profile. However, with no output schema and no parameter semantics, the agent must infer the meaning of limit, since_minutes, and the exact structure of a matching frame.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not: query, limit, and since_minutes are left to their names and defaults. The only indirect hint is that 'full-text search' implies the query parameter, which is insufficient.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: full-text search over OCR text of previously captured windows. It also states the result ordering (newest first) and clearly differentiates this from the sibling retrieval tools by scoping it to OCR screen history.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: when an agent needs to find previously observed screen text via full-text search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_context_around or get_recent_activity, nor state when not to use this tool.

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