adb_dump_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output format (XML/text), the mechanism (uiautomator), and that it captures the 'current' hierarchy. However, it omits any caveats about device connectivity, potential latency, or the tool being a read-only snapshot, which would further help an agent set expectations.

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 English portion is concise and front-loaded with the primary function. However, the entire description is duplicated in Spanish, adding no new information. This redundancy means not every sentence earns its place, reducing overall conciseness.

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?

This is a parameterless, read-only introspection tool with no output schema. The description explains what it returns and why it is useful, which is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it. Missing details like output size or formatting nuances are minor given the low complexity and lack of required parameters.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly says nothing about parameters.

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: 'Returns the current UI hierarchy of the Android device as XML/text via uiautomator.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with logcat, packages, and shell execution. Even with bilingual repetition, the English portion alone is unambiguous and complete.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Useful for UI automation and understanding the visible layout.' It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools overlap in function, so the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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