generate_locators

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the driver-dependent default filtering (controls for UiAutomator2/XCUITest/Web, all elements except hierarchy for other native drivers), which is real behavioral context not derivable from structured fields. It stops short of explaining what a 'locator candidate' actually is, whether results are ranked, or why hierarchy is excluded.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the defaults. Nothing is wasted, though terms like 'controls' and 'hierarchy' are used without unpacking, which leaves the second sentence denser than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does not: it never says what a candidate looks like (XPath, accessibility ID, UiSelector), how many are returned by default, or whether they are ordered. For a read-only, zero-required-param tool the risk is low, but the deliverable is underspecified.

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 baseline is 3; the description exceeds that by defining what the 'default driver-specific filter' referenced in the query parameter actually resolves to per driver, which the schema leaves opaque. It adds no new detail on limit, sessionId, or xpathAttributes, but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Generate current-page locator candidates for inspection.' An agent immediately knows this produces candidate selectors for the currently loaded screen. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as appium_locator_intel, appium_verify_locator, or appium_find_elements, so the differentiation job is left undone.

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?

'For inspection' implies the exploratory/debugging use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives like appium_verify_locator (to validate a chosen locator) or appium_find_element (to act on one). The usage is inferable but not stated.

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