Mapear elementos mobile (estrutura para testes)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a template, returns instructions for using Appium Inspector and uiautomator, and optionally reads a JSON file. It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., conflicting platform parameters) or explicitly state whether it modifies files or executes tests, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase adds necessary detail. It efficiently covers inputs, outputs, and conditional behavior without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, platform-specific logic) and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core workflow and the optional file input. It does not cover edge cases like parameter conflicts, but those are not essential for basic usage.

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?

The input schema already has 100% descriptions for all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by linking parameters to platforms: 'Aceita deep link, appPackage/appActivity (Android) ou bundleId (iOS)' and explaining elementsJsonPath's purpose of reading and formatting a file. This goes beyond the schema and helps select the correct parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Gera estrutura/template de elementos para testes mobile' (generates structure/template of elements for mobile tests). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'generate_tests' by stating the template is for use in generate_tests, positioning it as a preparatory step.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for generating mobile element mapping structures and instructions. It mentions the optional elementsJsonPath for reading existing mapped elements, implying a conditional workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, only implying the relationship with generate_tests.

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