Dump UI hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real context by disclosing the underlying uiautomator mechanism and that coordinates are directly usable for tapping. It omits practical traits of uiautomator dumps, such as the multi-second latency, which would have made it a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the mechanism, the scope and the exact return structure with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing relevant buried later.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value disclosure and does so for the default mode (node list with named fields). It leaves the raw=true XML response undocumented, a minor gap for a simple three-optional-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so the schema already explains raw, serial and includeAll; the description adds only marginal signal by describing the compact default form that raw=true overrides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (dump) and resource (on-screen view hierarchy) and goes further by naming the mechanism (uiautomator) and the output shape (compact node list with text, resource-id, content-desc, tap-ready centers). It does not explicitly contrast with the screenshot or adb_shell siblings, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'tap-ready center coordinates' hints this precedes an input/tap call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing this over screenshot or adb_shell for UI inspection. Baseline implied-usage score.

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