get_ui_tree

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states 'Compact UI tree' without explaining what 'compact' means, whether it is read-only, or if a target/device selection is required. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely brief but under-specified. It is a noun phrase rather than a clear sentence, sacrificing clarity for brevity. A properly concise description would include a verb and necessary context in a few words.

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 is simple, but the description omits essential context such as return format, usage context, and differentiation from similar tools like get_component_tree. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too incomplete to be fully useful.

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 only parameter 'platform' has an enum but no schema description. The description loosely mentions Android/iOS but does not explain the meaning of 'auto' or how the platform value affects the output. It fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (UI tree) and platforms (Android/iOS) but lacks a verb, reading as a fragment. It gives a general idea but does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_component_tree, so purpose clarity is only moderate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_component_tree or take_screenshot. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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