get_screen_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an observation/dump operation with no mutation implied, describes the output format in concrete detail, and adds a performance characteristic ('cheapest way'). It does not discuss edge cases or error behavior, but the read-only nature and output contract are clearly conveyed.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the output format; the second immediately connects the output to concrete follow-up actions. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity read tool with an output schema, the description fully specifies the default behavior and downstream usage. The only real gap is the raw_json parameter, and since it is optional with a sane default, the primary invocation path is complete. The presence of an output schema also covers return-value details.

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 needed to compensate for the raw_json parameter, but it never mentions raw_json at all. The parameter is only self-documented by its name and boolean type; the agent gets no explanation of what raw JSON looks like or when to set it to true.

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 ('Dump'), the resource ('current screen'), and the exact output shape ('numbered list of interactive elements' with indices, types, text, id, flags, and center coordinates). This clearly differentiates it from screenshot, find_element, and ai_debug_screen while also signaling its role as a lightweight observation tool.

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 says this is 'the cheapest way to observe the screen' and tells the agent how to use the output with tap(x, y) or selector-based actions. It gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to avoid this tool, so it stops 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.