renforge_get_ui_element_bounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Report' but does not mention failure modes, side effects, or any special behavior. The description is too minimal to be transparent about how the tool behaves.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices essential information for brevity.

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 complexity (6 params, 1 required, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations), the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral detail. Even with an output schema present, the agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of any parameter, nor does it clarify how the UI element is identified (e.g., via text, element_id, screen, expected_frame_id). The agent is left without guidance for filling in fields correctly.

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's function with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('focus bounds and rendered painted bounds for a UI element'). While it distinguishes itself from some siblings by mentioning 'focus bounds', it does not explicitly differentiate from renforge_get_displayable_bounds, so it falls short of a 5.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclude conditions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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