fgui_get_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. The term 'read' implies a non-destructive operation, and the advice to get stable IDs before modifying adds context. However, it doesn't detail any potential side effects or limitations, so transparency is moderate.

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 a single sentence with two clauses, providing the core purpose and a usage tip without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema provided. The description covers the what and when, and the output schema handles return values. The only gap is the undocumented max_depth parameter, but the overall context is sufficient for a basic read tool.

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 single parameter max_depth has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it, leaving its semantics unexplained beyond the name. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 reads the current component object tree, using the specific verb 'read' and a distinct resource. This differentiates it from mutation tools like fgui_insert_object and fgui_remove_object.

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 notes that this should be used before modifications to obtain stable object IDs or paths, providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools but indicates the intended timing.

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