tv_ui_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe return format or any caveats. The examples give some idea but fall short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and object. It wastes no words and is easily scannable.

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 it is a simple no-parameter getter without an output schema, the description provides sufficient conceptual detail about what is returned (panels, buttons, visibility/enabled state). While it might not enumerate every UI element, it is adequate for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty, leaving no ambiguity.

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 what the tool does: 'Get current UI state' and specifies the scope by listing examples (panels, buttons, enabled/disabled states). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from chart_get_state or tv_health_check, which cover other aspects.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or indicate whether to use it over ui_find_element or other UI inspection tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose, which is not explicit enough.

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