Touchpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context that this queries the 'accessibility tree,' but omits side effects, permission requirements, or performance characteristics of the accessibility query.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, return value description, and usage instruction. Front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the results. No further elaboration needed.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 action (List) and resource (applications with accessible UI elements), and mentions the 'accessibility tree' which distinguishes it from a generic process list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'windows' 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?

Provides positive usage guidance by specifying the output is used to scope specific siblings (find, elements, screenshot). However, it lacks negative constraints (when not to use) and does not clarify when to choose 'apps' over the sibling 'windows' tool.

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