get_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation and 'detailed information including settings' discloses the content of the response. Yet it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or the exact structure of the returned data, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 redundancy. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and scope, earning every word.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and return scope ('detailed information including settings'). It does not mention how to obtain a screen_id or reference sibling tools, but these are not essential for a simple get-by-ID 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter screen_id is well described as 'The DAKboard screen ID'. The description adds no additional semantic depth beyond calling the screen 'specific', so it neither compensates nor detracts from the schema baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a specific DAKboard screen' with added scope 'including settings'. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_screens (which lists all screens) and other get_* tools for different entities.

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?

Usage context is implied by the words 'specific' and 'including settings' — one should use this when needing details of a single screen. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over list_screens or update_screen.

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