gui_inspect_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of listing the tree aligns with read-only behavior. It adds value by specifying the elements returned (buttons, texts, IDs). No contradictions or hidden side effects are disclosed, but there is no mention of potential performance impact from the max_nodes parameter.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 no output schema, so the description should describe the return format (e.g., hierarchical text, JSON). It only says 'lists the tree' without specifying structure. Combined with missing parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for effective use.

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 has 2 parameters (title, max_nodes) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the title parameter expects or how max_nodes affects output. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 that the tool lists the UIA control element tree of a window, including buttons, texts, and IDs, and specifies it is ideal for the hub. This verb+resource+context combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like gui_click or gui_list_windows.

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 says 'ideal für den Hub,' which implies use in UI automation contexts. However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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