Screen MCP

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 mentions 'free memory', which hints at resource management, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, given 'release'), error conditions, or performance implications. The description is too brief to cover necessary details for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the second provides usage timing.

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 likely involves resource management (freeing memory) and has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe returns), the description is minimal but covers the basic action and timing. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects and parameter details to be fully complete.

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 doesn't add any meaning to the 'timeline_id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (a required string). With 0% coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but since the description fails to explain what 'timeline_id' is or its format, it doesn't fully compensate, warranting a lower score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('release') and resource ('timeline session'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'release_screenshot_capture'. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'release_screenshot_capture' beyond the resource type, and 'free memory' is somewhat vague.

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 provides clear context on when to use it ('after reading all required chunks'), which implies it should follow chunk retrieval operations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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