computer.get_ui_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains cross-platform backend behavior (Windows UI Automation or Linux AT-SPI) and promises an explanatory error when no accessibility backend is available, which is useful and non-obvious.

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 compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by platform and error details. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler.

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 description covers the main output shape and backend error behavior, but lacks explanation of the max_depth parameter and does not specify what happens for invalid windows or unsupported platforms beyond the backend error. It is adequate for simple use but leaves meaningful 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 must compensate. It partially explains the 'window' parameter via 'active (or a named) window', but it does not clarify 'max_depth', its meaning, limits, or how values affect the returned tree.

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 clearly states the tool gets the accessibility tree of the active or named window, and specifies the output as a nested structure of roles, names, and bounding boxes. It is specific about the resource and result, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like observe or find_text.

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 the tool is for retrieving an accessibility tree, but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as screenshot, observe, or find_text. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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