get_runtime_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly frames the operation as a read (suggesting non-destructive) and flags the optional artifact saving side effect. However, it omits important behavioral context such as prerequisites (DebugBridge must be active), failure behavior when the anchor isn't found, and whether saving artifacts affects the app or filesystem beyond creating files.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It leads with the core action and resource, mentions the mechanism, and appends the optional artifact behavior in a compact clause. No filler words or redundant information present.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the primary read operation and optional artifact saving, but it fails to mention what the response contains (e.g., JSON structure) or any runtime prerequisites like DebugBridge being enabled. This leaves a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call the tool and interpreting its result.

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 input schema is fully described with 100% coverage, including defaults and types. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. There are no examples or clarifications for the anchor format or artifact naming beyond schema text.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resource 'live UIKit node' via an anchor/accessibilityIdentifier, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_ui_hierarchy or get_page that operate on broader structures. The reference to DebugBridge and optional artifact saving adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 the tool should be used when a runtime anchor is available and one needs the corresponding node details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., get_ui_hierarchy for whole-hierarchy queries), leaving usage criteria implicit.

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