画面上の操作可能要素を一覧取得

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that it returns a list of names for currently displayed operable elements. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive behavior, rate limits, or how the optional limit affects the result set.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The return value and scope come first, followed by the intended use case, with no redundant or wasted wording.

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 simple snapshot tool, the core return and usage are covered. But the description leaves the limit parameter unexplained and does not describe the return structure beyond “list of names,” which is a gap given no output schema and no annotations.

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, limit, is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain what limit controls, its default, or its interaction with the returned list, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema’s type and constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a list of names/labels for currently displayed operable elements such as buttons, checkboxes, and text inputs. It also names the sibling tools (jizura_click, jizura_set_checkbox, jizura_fill) it feeds, making its role distinct from screenshot or interaction tools.

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?

Explicitly states the usage context: use it to check or adjust the name passed to jizura_click, jizura_set_checkbox, and jizura_fill. It does not state when not to use it or contrast it with jizura_screenshot, but the intended workflow is clear.

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