visualize_screen_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a fallback behavior ('falls back to API coordinates') and clarifies the benefit of using screen_uuid ('accurate CSS-based rendering'). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, though 'visualize' implies a safe operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence efficiently communicates a key parameter nuance without redundancy. 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?

For a straightforward visualization tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, the output format, and the key parameter behavior. It could mention the result format more explicitly (e.g., whether it's a raw string), but the ASCII diagram mention suffices.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the consequence of including screen_uuid (CSS-based rendering) versus omitting it (API coordinates), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'for accurate layout' wording.

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 action ('Visualize the spatial layout of blocks'), the specific resource ('on a DAKboard screen'), and the output format ('as an ASCII diagram'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only visualization tool, and the additional detail about screen_uuid adds specificity.

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 when to use the tool (to see spatial layout) and provides a clear usage hint about providing screen_uuid for accurate rendering. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the unique purpose makes this less critical.

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