appium_get_page_source

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

The description usefully explains that saveToFile=true returns a server-local path/bytes rather than XML, which explains why readOnlyHint=false despite this being a read-style operation (it writes a file server-side). However, 'enables selector/pattern summaries' is ambiguous — it does not say whether selector/pattern are ignored or rejected without saveToFile=true, and there is no note on output size or cost of full-mode XML.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense but slightly cryptic ('enables selector/pattern summaries'), costing a bit of clarity for its brevity.

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 five-parameter tool with zero required params and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits any indication of what the XML/compact output looks like, how large it can get, and how it relates to the many competing observation tools. The saveToFile behavior is well covered, but the default full-mode path is not.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the returned path is server-local (not client-fetchable) and ties saveToFile to the selector/pattern behavior. The linkage between saveToFile and the filtering parameters is the kind of cross-parameter interaction the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource: 'Get current-screen XML', which is unambiguous about what is returned. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as appium_screenshot, appium_screen_intel, or appium_find_element, so an agent must infer when raw page source beats those options.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the description; it never mentions the sibling tools that overlap (screenshot, screen_intel, find_element). The only usage hint ('use when you only need to act') lives in the mode enum in the schema, not in the description.

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