a11y_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns the accessibility tree, which implies a read-only operation, and adds the helpful 'what screen readers see' framing. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, output format, or scale of the result (e.g., whether hidden elements are included or if the tree can be very large).

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get'), names the resource, and adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every word is necessary and there is no wasted content.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional, well-documented parameters, the description gives the essential purpose and a helpful analogy (screen reader view). It doesn't describe the output format, but the term 'accessibility tree' strongly implies the output structure, and the schema covers the parameters. It is nearly complete, missing only an explicit note on the return representation.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (depth and maxDisplay). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema documents, 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'accessibility tree' and scope 'for the current page'. It also clarifies the meaning with '(what screen readers see)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like a11y_audit (which evaluates accessibility) and a11y_query (which likely queries specific nodes).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need the full accessibility tree as screen readers perceive it. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Although it doesn't say 'use this instead of a11y_query', the distinct phrasing and the sibling list make the use case apparent.

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