get_ui_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the 'depth' parameter can be slow for 'deep' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like permissions required, whether data is cached, or impact on the target application. A read-only tool, but no explicit guarantee of non-destructiveness.

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 long, front-loaded with the core function, and the second sentence adds context. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameter details). Still, it is efficient.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return format. It does not mention that it returns a tree of elements with properties like role, name, etc. The reference to siblings like click_ui_element provides some context for usage flow, but completeness for a retrieval tool is lacking.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value: for 'app', it repeats 'application process name', and for 'depth', it adds 'can be slow' to the schema's 'full tree' description. This is marginal improvement, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Get accessibility UI elements of a window for a given app', clearly identifying the resource (UI elements of a window) and scope (per app). It distinguishes from sibling tools like click_ui_element, which interacts with elements, and get_mouse_position, which reads mouse coordinates.

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 states it is 'useful for finding buttons, text fields, etc.', implying it is for exploration before interaction. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided, though sibling tools suggest context. This is minimally adequate but lacks precise conditions.

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