covidence_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that the tool returns a prompt that Claude executes via Chrome tools rather than performing actions directly. Still, it does not disclose prerequisites such as login state, whether the prompt will cause real votes to be cast, or how failures are handled.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose ('Run a screening session'), then efficiently describe the return value, scope, and execution model. There is no filler or redundancy; each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and how Claude should execute it, which is essential since there is no output schema. However, it omits context about prerequisites, such as needing covidence_login first, and does not address how the returned prompt relates to stored criteria or the criteria_override parameter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning about review_id, batch_size, or criteria_override beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Run a screening session') and the concrete deliverable: a complete prompt for Claude to navigate Covidence in Chrome, covering navigation, reading abstracts, applying criteria, and casting votes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like covidence_nav or covidence_log_vote, which handle individual steps.

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 implies this tool is for whole-session screening rather than individual steps by listing navigation, abstract reading, criteria application, and voting together. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over covidence_nav, covidence_set_criteria, or covidence_log_vote, nor does it mention prerequisites like being logged in.

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