ui_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains the paging/trailing semantics and node fields, but it does not state whether this tool is read-only, whether any side effects occur, whether a timeout is needed for deep trees, or how large a response may be. Some behavior is revealed, but important safety/performance characteristics are omitted.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the root choices, then the node fields, and finally the important trunction/paging semantics. No sentence is wasted.

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 output schema gives the fine-grained response shape, so the description does not need to re-list fields. It is missing enough parameter semantics that a caller does not know how `limit` and `depth` control the page, and side effects are unaddressed. The completeness 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?

The schemas provide no descriptions for any of the 4 parameters (0% coverage), so the tool description must compensate. It explains `root` values (`menu`/`screen`) but remains silent on `depth`, `limit`, and `timeout`. Without these semantics, an agent does not know how batching or scan depth affect results.

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 defines the tool as a getter for the client's widget tree and specifies the distinction between `root: menu` and `root: screen`. It conveys the specific resource (UI widget tree), though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself.

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 conveys what the tool is for, and root options imply when to pass `menu` vs `screen`, but it never states when to prefer `ui_tree` over siblings like `ui_find`, `ui_text`, or `ui_menu`. Usage context is implicitly inferred, not explicitly guided.

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