sdlc_get_screens

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds useful behavioral details: returns a Markdown-formatted screen inventory grouped by epic, and warns that include_prototypes can be very large. This helps the agent anticipate output size and format.

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 well-structured with purpose, return details, and args sections. It is front-loaded with the main action, though slightly verbose with the full Args breakdown. Each sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only listing tool with good annotations and schema, the description covers the main usage, return format, and potential size issue. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it does not discuss error cases or pagination.

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 provides descriptions for both project_id (UUID) and include_prototypes (default false, can be large). The description's Args section largely repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it does not significantly enhance schema coverage.

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 'List all UI screens defined for a project with their metadata', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on screen listings rather than projects, summaries, or artifacts.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to obtain screen inventory and metadata). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident and sibling names give additional context.

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