screen_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does mention the kind of information returned (resolution, DPI, control switch status), but it is vague about what 'control switch status' means, does not explicitly state it is a read-only query, and omits any side effects or access requirements.

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 very short and waste-free, but it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, and it lacks critical details. It is not as well-structured as the highest-conciseness examples, which use full sentences to convey scoping and alternatives.

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 tool is simple (0 parameters, no output schema), but the description still leaves ambiguity around terms like 'control switch status' and does not explain the return format or how this tool fits among screen-related siblings. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently without additional context.

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 and the schema is empty, so parameter semantics is trivially clear. The description adds useful context about the data returned, which exceeds the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource (screen) and the specific information provided (resolution, DPI, control switch status). It is more informative than just the tool name, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like screen_capture or vision_health.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as screen_capture or vision_health. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred, and provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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