get_ui_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the read operation. The description adds behavioral details: visibleOnly defaults true, filter narrows by class, and return structure includes optional fields like text, disabled, and tooltip. No contradictions.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then usage guidance, parameter details, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains prerequisites, parameter defaults, and the full return object structure. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description adds meaning: explains the default behavior of visibleOnly (default true, pass false for hidden) and gives concrete filter examples (Button, Label, LineEdit). This enriches the parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states it walks the scene tree and returns Control nodes with positions, sizes, types, and text content, and explicitly connects its usage to simulate_input click_element actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_scene_tree by focusing on UI element discovery.

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 explicitly says 'Always call this before simulate_input click_element actions' and specifies the prerequisite of an active runtime session. This provides clear when-to-use and contextual dependencies.

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