Developer info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the specific content returned (IAccessible/UIA/IA2 properties, window, Python classes including overlay classes, app module) and its framing as a debugging aid equivalent to NVDA+F1.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the resource and enumerates returned content, the second states the use case. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description is appropriately sized for a simple 2-optional-parameter read tool. The only meaningful gap is disambiguation from sibling inspection tools, which the definition does not address.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'id' (a control from nvda_find_objects) and 'target' (focus vs navigator) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'for a control', 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 names a specific verb+resource: retrieving NVDA's developer info for a control (accessibility API properties, window, Python/overlay classes, app module), and anchors it to a concrete user action (NVDA+F1). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as nvda_inspect_object, nvda_lookup_api, or nvda_get_navigator_object, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It gives an implied use case — 'Use it to see which API and NVDAObject class NVDA uses for a control, and why it behaves as it does' — which is a diagnostic/developer intent. However, with 36 sibling tools including inspect_object and lookup_api, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-that guidance or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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