generate_locators

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and not open-world. The description adds useful scoping context ('current page', 'all interactable elements') but does not disclose details like output structure, failure behavior, or performance characteristics. There is no contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by a concise usage hint. Every part contributes actionable information without unnecessary filler.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: one optional, fully documented parameter, read-only annotations, and no nested schema. The description covers purpose and when to use it. It could describe the exact return format more explicitly, but for a debugging/inspection tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter, sessionId, and the schema description fully explains it: 'Session ID to target. If omitted, uses the active session.' With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource: 'Generate locators for all interactable elements on the current page.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and the output type (locators + element info). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like appium_find_element, but the 'all interactable elements' scope is reasonably distinctive.

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 bracketed note explicitly gives usage context: 'Use this for debugging/inspection or when you need comprehensive element info with locator suggestions.' This is clear and actionable, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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