ghost_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-stage strategy (UIA name-matching first, then a single batched VLM call) and the exact return fields. It does not mention failure modes, cost, or side effects, but for a read-style extraction tool the disclosed strategy is substantial.

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 three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the extraction strategy and return value summary. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully explains what the tool returns and how it operates. It is missing a brief explanation of the 'UIA name-matching' approach and edge-case behavior, but for a 3-parameter, zero-required-parameter tool it is largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already says; it only indirectly references the schema fields via 'fields still unmatched.'

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 states a specific action ('Extract structured data') and a clear target ('from the screen'), and also names the returned information. It is not a tautology and is more specific than the tool name. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling extraction/vision tools like ghost_see or ghost_find, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need structured data from the screen. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related tasks, such as ghost_see, ghost_snapshot, or ghost_tab_describe.

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