ui.get_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and does not click, but omits return format, selector-failure behavior, and any limits beyond the schema's brief limit description.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose plus read-only constraint are front-loaded. Its brevity leaves gaps, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage mean the description should carry more. It omits selector semantics, pkg/limit meaning, and return details, leaving it incomplete for a 3-parameter read tool.

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 only 33%: just 'limit' is documented in the schema. The description refers to the selector concept but adds no format or meaning for selector or pkg, and does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb '读取' and resource '选择器命中节点的文本', and adds the qualifier '只读不点击'. It distinguishes itself from click/write siblings such as ui.click and ui.set_text, but does not explicitly name alternatives like ui.find or ui.snapshot, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. The parenthetical '只读不点击' hints at a read-only use case, but does not guide tool selection or provide prerequisites.

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