list_displays

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully explain behavior. It describes the returned fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, handles errors (e.g., no displays), or performance characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and key data fields. However, it is truncated, which slightly reduces its completeness. Efficient but could be expanded slightly.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable summary of what is returned. However, it lacks details on return format (array/object), data types, and edge cases. The truncation also leaves ambiguity about the final field.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the return data (bounds, scale_factor, main display), which is not present in the schema. This compensates well for the lack of an output schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists connected displays with bounds, scale_factor, and likely main display identification. No other sibling tools appear to list displays, so it is well-distinguished.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, but since it is the only display-related tool among siblings, usage is implied. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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