wrave_get_accessibility_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the extraction action and use case; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires the tab to be active/loaded, what the return format is, or any performance/rate-limit considerations. This is a meaningful gap for a retrieval tool.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the high-level purpose is present, and the description implies the return value (the accessibility tree) even without an output schema. However, the absence of annotations and any behavioral/precondition details leaves open questions about tab validity, snapshot freshness, and the exact tree structure returned, so it is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 input schema already describes tab_id as 'The ID of the tab' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Extract') and identifies the exact resource ('full accessibility tree (AXTree)') with a clear purpose ('semantic screen-reader level inspection'). This distinguishes it from sibling wrave_get_dom_tree, which focuses on the raw DOM rather than the accessibility/semantic view.

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 semantic screen-reader level inspection' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as wrave_get_dom_tree or wrave_get_snapshot, nor does it say when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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