mobile_dump_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON envelope whose data.hierarchy holds the tree'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires the device to be awake, or any potential side effects. The return format disclosure is a positive, but behavioral context is limited.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and use case, and the Args/Returns sections are minimal and informative. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, the parameter source, and the return envelope. It could mention whether the hierarchy is XML or JSON, or note that the device must be connected, but these are minor gaps for a simple read-only dump 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that serialno is 'The mobile device serialno, from list_devices,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., how to obtain it beyond list_devices) or edge cases. The single parameter is adequately explained for basic use.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the UI element tree, for finding coordinates instead of guessing.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('UI element tree'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like screenshot or mobile_tap by explaining its use case (finding coordinates). It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear.

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 when to use this tool: when you need coordinates for UI elements rather than guessing. It also mentions the serialno comes from list_devices, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like screenshot for visual inspection. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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