get_accessibility_tree

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 the output includes ARIA roles, names, and states, but does not disclose default behavior for hidden elements, the return format, or any access requirements. This is comparable to the mid-tier example where mutation details were omitted.

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?

One concise sentence, immediately front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The emoji is decorative but does not detract. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has moderate complexity with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains what the accessibility tree contains but lacks return format, default behavior details, or pagination/filtering implications, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3 as the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Get the full accessibility tree with ARIA roles, names, and states', using a specific verb and resource. The '(screen reader view)' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_visual_map and get_interactive_map.

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 implies usage for accessibility inspection via the '(screen reader view)' context, which is clear guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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