adl_observe

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses a real behavioral trait: oversized option lists are dropped and signalled via options_truncated:true while control identity/state is preserved. It also adds a security-relevant instruction to treat page text as untrusted data. It omits cursor pagination behavior, which the schema parameter implies but the description never mentions.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core capability is front-loaded before the truncation/recovery detail. The density of internal jargon (options_truncated, token_budget, id:<element_id>) costs some clarity but each clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool with only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers truncation and safety well but says nothing about the shape of a successful response, cursor paging semantics, or what delta/since_revision do. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the payload structure from the description alone.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description carries much of the burden and does add meaning: the non-obvious 'id:<element_id>' syntax for scope appears nowhere in the schema, and it explains the tradeoff between token_budget and the include list. It leaves depth, cursor, since_revision, and session_id unaddressed, so the coverage is partial rather than complete.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ('Return ... semantic UI') and immediately qualifies it as bounded and redacted, which tells an agent this is a state-observation tool rather than a screenshot or action tool. It does not name a sibling such as adl_capture explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 gives a recovery path when output is truncated ('reobserve scope id:<element_id> with a larger token_budget, or omit options via include'), which is genuine conditional guidance. However, it never states the general case for choosing this tool over adl_capture or adl_act, so the primary when-to-use decision is left implicit.

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