get_alert_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the core behavior (retrieving alert text). It is silent on what happens when no alert is present (error vs. empty result) and whether it returns only text or also button labels. It does correctly convey a non-destructive read intent, which is the minimum for a simple reader.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter reader with full schema coverage and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient. The one real gap is the absence of any statement about behavior when no alert dialog is active.

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% for the single device_id parameter (documented as 'Simulator UDID'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the text of the current alert dialog'), which is far more precise than the tautological name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_ui_tree, which could also surface alert text, 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'current alert dialog' signals the precondition that an alert must be present, but the description never says when to reach for this over get_ui_tree or what to do if no alert is showing. No explicit when/when-not or alternatives are given.

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