look

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is a repeatable refresh, but says nothing about what is actually returned (an image? a textual screen dump?) or whether it reflects pending state changes. Note idempotentHint=false alongside a 'show again' read is mildly surprising and unexplained.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the qualifying context in a compact parenthetical. No filler; only minor gain from a slightly cleaner phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the result, yet it never says what 'show' produces or how the agent should interpret it. For a screen-capture-style tool in a 20-sibling set, that is a meaningful 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description correctly implies there is nothing to configure. No parameter-level confusion is possible.

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?

"Show the current screen again" states a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies it is a re-render/refresh action rather than a new navigation. It is distinguishable from navigation siblings like zoom or pan, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the similarly-named 'inspect' or 'screen_settings'.

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 parenthetical gives concrete triggering conditions — after changing options, or to refresh your view — which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., first call after opening a drawing).

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