list_screens

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the name. Since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden, but only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, or return format. The 'list' verb implicitly suggests non-destructive behavior, but no explicit disclosure is given.

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, focused sentence with no redundant content, achieving maximum conciseness for a tool that requires no parameters.

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 is adequate for a simple list operation with no parameters or output schema, but it could be improved by mentioning that it returns all screens without any filters or by referencing the get_screen tool for individual screens.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed, so no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 'List' and resource 'DAKboard screens', making its purpose clear and differentiating it from sibling list tools for loops, blocks, devices, etc. It doesn't name alternatives, but the resource is explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives like get_screen or other list tools. The description lacks any context or exclusion criteria.

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