get_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches various design data, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but the scope of returned data is well described.

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 consists of three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

The description lists what data is returned (variants, layers, annotations, tokens), compensating for the lack of an output schema. It does not specify response format or error handling, but for a read tool with clear inputs, this is nearly complete.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add details about the 'url' parameter (missing schema description) or further clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema partially covers parameter meaning.

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 'Fetches detailed design data for a specific screen from Zeplin', using a specific verb and resource. It lists the contents (variants, layers, annotations, tokens) and distinguishes from sibling tools focused on layer assets, components, or tokens.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand screen layout, content, and interactions for development or review.' It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives (e.g., get_component for a specific component).

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