appium_get_page_source

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds that the result is XML and tied to the current screen. However, it does not disclose contextual behaviors such as whether the source can be large, whether accessibility data is included, or what happens when no session exists. It does not contradict the annotations.

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: verb, object, format, and scope are all present. Given the simple schema, this is appropriately concise.

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 operation with one optional parameter, the description and schema cover the essential call information. It identifies the return format as XML and the schema handles session targeting; no critical detail needed to invoke the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional sessionId parameter, and the schema already explains the active-session fallback. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the page source (XML) from the current screen.' It is unambiguous and easy for an agent to act on, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools that inspect UI content.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives like appium_get_text, appium_find_element, or appium_screenshot. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as an active session or when the full XML source is the appropriate choice.

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