pet_screen_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only ('Read'), which is safe, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as return format, side effects, or authentication requirements. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence of 15 words. It contains no filler and every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and differentiator. However, the lack of parameter documentation and return value information leaves minor gaps for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 has one optional parameter ('session') with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to explain its purpose or usage. The description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 verb ('Read'), the resource ('raw screen-code matrix'), and the intent ('checking glyphs without decoding ambiguity'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool pet_screen_text which likely returns decoded 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?

The phrase 'without decoding ambiguity' strongly implies usage when exact raw codes are needed rather than decoded text, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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