list_screens

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns an array of strings, implying a read operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or performance characteristics. The description is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value: 'Returns', 'all screens', 'available in the current project', 'array of strings'. It is concise and structured well.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It explains the return value but lacks context about assumptions (e.g., requires an open project) or error conditions. Could be expanded slightly for clarity.

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 has no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. According to calibration, a score of 4 is baseline for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter info beyond the schema, but that is expected.

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 tool returns all screens available in the current project as an array of strings. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'screens' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like switch_screen and get_project_info by focusing on listing only.

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 usage for listing screens but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like switch_screen or get_project_info. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, which is a gap even for a simple tool.

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