inspect_ui

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

The description uses the verb 'Read,' which signals a non-mutating operation, and mentions 'directly from DebugBridge' for context. However, no annotations are present, and the description does not disclose further behavioral details such as return format, error conditions, or performance implications. It adds limited value beyond the name.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core functionality.

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 description explains the basic operation but does not address usage context, distinguish from get_ui_hierarchy, or describe the output format. With simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks completeness for an agent comparing related tools.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description itself does not add additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 reads the current App UIWindow/UIView tree from DebugBridge, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_ui_hierarchy, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ui_hierarchy. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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