ghost_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well: it enumerates what is returned, defines the actionable flag precisely with the greyed-out button example, and signals a non-mutating, read-oriented operation through 'view' and 'planning view.'

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?

Three tight sentences deliver purpose, behavioral semantics, workflow guidance, and parameter summaries without wasted words. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only inspection tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how actionable is computed, default window behavior, and the intended planning-then-acting workflow. No material information needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly adding 'enabled' to actionable_only's meaning beyond the schema's 'interactable' phrasing, and by tying it to noise reduction for planning. It adds little for limit beyond the schema, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 verb and resource: it produces a structured, agent-planning view of a window's UI, listing concrete element fields and accepted actions. It also distinguishes itself from screenshots and from ghost_act by framing the tool as the 'plan here' step.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: reason over the UI cheaply before acting, then act via ghost_act by name/role. It also contrasts itself with screenshots on cost, which is a clear selection signal among the sibling tools.

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