screen_settings

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

The description's verb 'Change the screen' describes a mutation while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; that is an inconsistency. Beyond the field list, it says nothing about persistence, whether unspecified settings reset, defaults (all params default to null), or return behavior.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is lean, though terse enough to border on under-specification for a 5-parameter tool.

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, five optional params, and a readOnly/change ambiguity, the description should clarify persistence and return behavior but does not. Completeness is inadequate for a settings tool whose defaults are all null.

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 coverage is 60%; width_px/height_px ranges and the cjk enum meanings are documented in-schema. The description usefully groups the settings (size, grid, minimap, CJK) so each maps to a parameter, but grid/minimap booleans remain undocumented and the description adds no format detail beyond naming them.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) and resource (the screen) and enumerates the four configurable groups (drawing area size, grid, minimap, CJK glyphs). This distinguishes it from view-navigation siblings like zoom/pan, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus zoom/zoom_window/pan or other view tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this configures view settings rather than navigating.

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