get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the operation is read-only ('without changing the app') and that it times out after 90s. It does not describe return shape, failure behavior, or side effects of options like record/noRecord, but the core safety and timeout traits are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then cover format selection and timeout. There is no filler or repetition of schema content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 21 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but the schema covers the optional parameters well. It omits return value expectations and guidance for choosing among related sibling tools, which leaves an agent to infer some usage context. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 about 95%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real semantic value for the required format parameter by explaining that 'text' gives visible content and 'attrs' gives the element attribute map. This goes beyond the bare enum in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read text or accessibility attributes from a snapshot ref or selector.' It also explicitly states the operation does not change the app, which distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings like click, type, and swipe. The two formats (text vs attrs) further clarify what the tool returns.

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 gives clear direction on choosing between 'text' and 'attrs' formats, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not name sibling tools such as find or snapshot, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over those alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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