mobile_observe

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

The description adds behavioral specifics beyond the annotations (e.g., stable @m refs in compact mode, classes and bounds in full mode). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which the description does not contradict.

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 that front-loads the purpose and key mode differentiation. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite good annotations, the description is too brief given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return structure, how parameters affect output, or how the two modes differ in results beyond a hint.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only indirectly references the 'mode' parameter via 'compact' and 'full'. No mention of limit, query, since, or offset, leaving agents without parameter guidance.

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 clearly states it reads MobileNAV state (verb+resource) and distinguishes two modes: compact with stable @m refs, and full which adds classes and bounds. This differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_observe or mobile_act.

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 description implies a read-only use case, aligning with its annotations, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use compact vs full, or when to choose this tool over browser_observe or other siblings. Usage context is only implied.

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