appium_get_element_attribute

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that non-destructive getter. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as what happens if the attribute does not exist or the exact return format.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the practical use cases, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient for selection and invocation. The main omission is the exact return type or null behavior for missing attributes, but that is minor given the tool name and examples.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic grouping by separating state attributes from property attributes. This helps the agent choose appropriate values for the attribute parameter beyond what the schema lists.

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 states a specific action ('Get the value of an element attribute') and concrete use examples, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the overlapping sibling appium_get_text, which can also retrieve text or value attributes.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to check element state... or read properties', giving clear contexts for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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