get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load. It explicitly states 'without changing the app', providing a clear non-mutating guarantee. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format details, error behavior, or cost implications, so it is minimally adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. The distinction between text and attrs is efficient and immediately usable.

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 tool's core operation is simple (read text/attrs from an element), the description covers the main use case. There is no output schema, but the description hints at the return shape via the format parameter. The many other parameters are generic device selectors and do not need explanation here.

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 97%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds semantics for the two required params: 'format' (text vs attrs) and 'target' (snapshot ref or selector). This goes beyond the schema labels and clarifies the intended output for each format.

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 what the tool does: reads text or accessibility attributes from a snapshot ref or selector. The verb 'Read' is specific and the resource ('snapshot ref or selector') is unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself as a non-mutating inspection tool from the sibling tools like 'snapshot' or 'find'.

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 implies usage: use this tool to read content or attributes from a UI element. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only nature is signaled. The guidance about 'format text' vs 'attrs' covers internal parameter selection rather than tool selection.

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