appium_get_element_attribute

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds usage context but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether an invalid attribute returns null, empty string, or an error, nor any platform-specific quirks. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the usage examples are immediately useful without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read-only getter with fully described parameters and a clear annotation, the description and schema together provide sufficient context to call the tool. The main gap is the lack of explicit return/error behavior, but 'Get the value' conveys the core return semantic, making this near-complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping attributes into state checks versus property reads, which helps the agent choose meaningful attribute names. It does not add meaningful new information about sessionId or elementUUID beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving an element attribute value and provides concrete examples (enabled, selected, checked, content-desc, resource-id). This makes the purpose understandable and distinct from generic page-source or screenshot tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling appium_get_text.

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 phrase 'Use this to check element state... or read properties' gives explicit guidance on when to apply the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions when another tool like appium_get_text should be preferred, so it stops short of a full 5.

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