switch_display

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the switch is not immediate but affects subsequent operations, which is useful. However, it does not explain persistence, reversibility, or any side effects (e.g., whether the switch is session-wide or client-wide), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and immediately states the purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what effect it has on subsequent operations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents 'display' as a 0-based index or 'auto'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely framing the parameter as the target display. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Switch'), the resource ('active display'), and the scope/effect ('for subsequent screenshots and actions'). This unambiguously differentiates it from the sibling input tools, which all perform direct actions rather than changing the target display.

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 phrase 'for subsequent screenshots and actions' provides clear context on when to use this tool: as a setup step before operating on another display. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but there are no obvious alternative tools among the siblings for switching displays.

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