get_app_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the return contents (accessibility tree and state_id) and implies that state_id becomes stale, hence the re-observe instruction. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., invalid app_ref), permission requirements, or what happens if called repeatedly without an action. It also does not explicitly label the operation as read-only, though 'observe' implies it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 has a nested object parameter, an enum parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the return type at a high level but leaves out critical operational details such as how to construct app_ref, what 'detail' controls, and what failure modes exist. An agent calling this tool would need to infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning neither the description nor the schema explains what 'app_ref' or 'detail' mean or how to use them. The agent is left to guess the structure of app_ref and the meaning of detail enum values. This is a significant gap that the description fails to address.

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 the tool observes an app and returns an accessibility tree plus a state_id. The verb 'observe' and resource 'app' are specific, and the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but no other sibling appears to serve the same observation role, so the purpose is sufficiently distinct.

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 description provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call ONCE before acting; re-observe only after an action or when the next step needs fresh UI state.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and how often. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or conditions when this tool should not be used, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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