screenstudio_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful scope detail that the result is a static, closed set of shipped assets, but says nothing about return shape or size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the scope ("Everything Screen Studio ships") and then enumerates contents compactly. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the catalog contains. It could have gone slightly further on how results are keyed or grouped, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's embedded config paths (e.g. cursor.set.id) explain what the enumerated items correspond to, adding useful context even though there is no input to document.

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 names a specific resource (a catalog of settings-addressable assets) and enumerates its contents with concrete config paths like styles.background.systemName and device.frameKey. It distinguishes itself from generic list tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and overlaps somewhat with siblings like screenstudio_music and screenstudio_voice_lines.

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?

"Everything settings can point to" implies this is the lookup table for valid IDs before configuring settings, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and it does not route the agent away from the music/voice siblings.

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