get_screen_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('返回 JSON 文本') and the specific data fields, and '获取' implies a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly state absence of side effects, but for a getter this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence lists what it returns, the second provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every phrase adds value.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure is already documented. The description covers purpose, usage context, and return format. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit non-destructive statement, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and instead focuses on the output structure, which is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('显示器布局'), then enumerates the exact data fields: screen names, resolutions, offsets, primary flag, and virtual desktop size. This clearly differentiates it from sibling action tools like click or type_text.

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?

It explicitly says '多屏/坐标问题排查时先调它理解几何环境', giving a concrete scenario and priority ('call it first'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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