appium_get_active_element

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. Since there is no output schema, the explicit statement that it returns a UUID for follow-up interactions adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the core action and return value, the second adds a decision rule. No redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read-on ly getter, the description covers what it returns and whe to use it. The only missing context is edge-case behavior when no element is active/focused, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully describes the only parameter (sessionId, optional, with its own description), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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') with a clear resource ('currently active/focused element') and states the output ('its UUID for follow-up interactions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like appium_find_element, which locates elements by criteria rather than returning the focused one.

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 PRIORITY 1 note gives an explicit condition for when to use this tool ('when you need to find what element currently has focus'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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