screen_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool adds or replaces a screen, but fails to explain what 'replace' entails (overwrite or merge), authorization requirements, or side effects. The mutation behavior is implied but not detailed.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, immediately followed by the key attributes. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, many fields) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and components. It omits return values or error handling, but is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 100% with a minimal description 'The screen definition' on the only parameter. The tool description compensates by listing the key fields (intent, requiredStates, designedStates, components with colors/labels/target sizes), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 uses specific verb 'Add or replace' and clearly identifies the resource 'a screen'. It enumerates the key components: intent, requiredStates, designedStates, and components with colors/labels/target sizes. This distinguishes it from siblings like screen_critique.

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 tool versus alternatives like journey_define or screen_critique. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it fits into the workflow.

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