Reads Filmora UI Automation controls and focus; name queries filter returned elements, not tree traversal. IDs expire, so requery for current handles.
Read UI Automation controls and focus. IDs expire; query filters returned names, not tree traversal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hwnd | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_elements | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: returned IDs expire, and query scoping applies to names in the result rather than pruning traversal. This is useful operational detail the annotations do not carry.
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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The caveats (expiring IDs, query scope) are appended efficiently. Slightly telegraphic, but no sentence is wasted.
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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the traversal parameters (max_depth, max_elements, hwnd) and ideally the shape of the returned control tree. It covers only the query parameter and an ID-lifetime caveat, leaving several call-critical gaps.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies the query parameter ('filters returned names, not tree traversal') and leaves hwnd, max_depth, and max_elements completely unexplained, including their defaults and effect on the scan. It compensates for only one of four 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Read UI Automation controls and focus.' It is clear this inspects the live UIA tree, distinct from higher-level siblings like filmora_state or filmora_windows. It does not explicitly contrast itself against those overlapping siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance. The 'IDs expire' note hints that results are short-lived but doesn't say when an agent should call this versus filmora_windows or filmora_ui_action. Usage is only weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.