list_screens

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 communicates that the operation reads and returns all screens, but it does not describe the response format, error handling, ordering, or whether any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation-based safety flags.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It precisely states the action and target, and for a simple list operation, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining return values and edge cases. It states the core function but omits what a screen entry includes, whether pagination exists, and what happens if the projectId is invalid. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to plan subsequent actions.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter, projectId, with a clear description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for coverage but provides no extra value.

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 specifies the action (list), the resource (screens), and the scope (in a Stitch project). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_projects, generate_screen, and edit_screen.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The verb 'list' and the sibling tool names imply it is the right choice for enumerating screens, but this is left implicit. No explicit guidance is provided.

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