get_all_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core function ('get all visible text elements') without explaining return format, behavior regarding empty text, or whether it operates on the accessibility tree. Minimal value beyond the name.

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?

A single sentence with a parenthetical use case. No wasted words, all necessary information is front-loaded. Very concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but lacks explicit statement of return type. Slightly more detail (e.g., 'returns list of strings') would make it fully 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter includeEmpty, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not mention parameters, but since schema already handles semantics, 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'all visible text elements on screen', clearly distinguished from siblings like get_ui_tree (which returns UI hierarchy) and screenshot (which returns an image). The scope is explicit and immediately understandable.

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 parenthetical 'useful for debugging and verification' provides clear context on when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions' at a level 4.

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