get_ui_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves visible UI elements, but does not disclose the return format, whether it returns a flat list or hierarchy, or any side effects. As a simple read operation, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It does not explain what format the UI elements are returned in or what 'visible' entails (e.g., viewport visibility, runtime scene tree). The absence of an output schema means the agent has to infer the return structure, which could lead to errors.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. The schema is empty and the description does not reference any parameters, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'UI elements', qualified by 'visible in the running project'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_tree or get_editor_status, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context for use. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without information about preferred scenarios or comparisons to similar getter tools.

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