get_ui_tree

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It mentions incremental delta signals (hinting at optimization) but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires a running app, or has performance implications. The term 'Get' implies a read, but specifics are lacking.

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 purpose. No wasted words. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure supports quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the return format (structured JSON with snapshot metadata and delta signals) but lacks depth on the tree's composition or performance expectations. For a complex tool, more context (e.g., size, filtering) would help.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., deviceId defaults, platform enum). No elaboration on parameter usage or constraints.

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 it retrieves the current UI hierarchy from Android/iOS, returning a structured JSON. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_current_screen' (which likely returns a simpler identifier) and 'get_screen_fingerprint' (a hash), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not is provided. It implies usage for obtaining the full UI tree but does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or contraindications. Among siblings, clearer guidance would help, e.g., when to use this vs the more granular finding elements tools.

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