list_screens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Lists all screens' clearly signals a read-only enumeration, but it does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or any access prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not richly transparent.

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 one short sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource and earns 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?

For a one-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description covers the core behavior. However, there is no output schema and no annotation context, so an agent cannot tell what fields a listed screen contains or whether the result is paginated. This is a real but modest gap.

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% and the single projectId parameter is already described as 'The Stitch project ID.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('all screens in a Stitch project'), which is clear and distinct from list_projects and get_screen. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling differentiation, but the plural 'screens' versus 'screen' makes the scope reasonably apparent.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of get_screen, list_projects, or edit_screens. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from sibling names.

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