save-ui-hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Save' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like file system permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (file writing), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after saving (e.g., success confirmation, error messages), file format details, or integration with other tools in the ecosystem. For a tool that modifies the file system, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters ('xmlSource' and 'filePath') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format expectations, path conventions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Save') and resource ('UI hierarchy XML'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'save' operations for other data types, though no obvious direct siblings exist in the provided list. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction context.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether UI hierarchy XML must be obtained first from another tool like 'get-element-tree'), nor does it specify typical use cases or constraints. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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