get_ui_elements

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only. The description adds details on default behavior (visibleOnly defaults true), optional parameters (filter narrows by class), and return fields (path, type, rect, visible, plus optional text/disabled/tooltip). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no wasted sentences. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, parameter behavior, and return format efficiently. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 parameters with output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites, parameter details, and return structure. It is complete without extending beyond necessary information.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description reinforces the schema by stating defaults (visibleOnly defaults true) and explaining filter narrows by class, adding value beyond the structured 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 the tool walks the running scene tree to return Control nodes with positions, sizes, types, and text content. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it should be called before simulate_input actions, setting it apart from other get tools like get_scene_tree or get_node_properties.

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 provides explicit guidance to call this before simulate_input for discovering element names and paths. It also states the prerequisite of an active runtime session, implicitly indicating when not to use. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or situations to avoid.

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