appium_screen_intel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that output is a summarisation rather than raw source, that it includes below-the-fold content beyond the visible viewport, and that it returns suggested next actions. It does not discuss size/latency characteristics or how verbosity affects the payload (the schema handles the parameter, not the behavior).

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the competitive positioning (replaces page source + finds) as the closing justification. Every clause corresponds to a concrete output element.

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?

With no output schema and a non-trivial aggregation tool, the description usefully enumerates the shape of the result and mentions below-the-fold and suggested actions, which an agent could not otherwise infer. Minor gap: it does not clarify that the call is viewport-scoped versus full-tree, nor how verbosity changes the summary depth.

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 100% with all three optional parameters documented, including the snapshot linkage to appium_ui_diff and the verbosity default, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional syntax, defaults, or interaction guidance for these parameters, placing it at the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (classify, summarise) against a precise resource (the current screen) and enumerates exactly what is produced: type, inputs, buttons, navigation, keyboard/dialog state, below-the-fold content, suggested actions. It also positions itself against siblings by stating it replaces page source plus several finds, which maps to appium_get_page_source and appium_find_element(s).

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?

"One call replaces page source + several finds" gives clear context for preferring this tool over the low-level inspection siblings. It stops short of explicit exclusions or sequencing advice (e.g., when to prefer appium_locator_intel or appium_observe instead), so it is clear guidance without full when-not coverage.

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