appium.get_accessibility_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but not whether it requires an active Appium session, how it handles errors, whether it reads current UI state, or what 'compact' means in terms of output size or structure. The description adds only a minimal parsing nuance beyond the purpose statement.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the core behavior with 'Return a compact accessibility summary', and contains no filler or redundant content. It earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, so the description needs to supply substantial context. It does not define what the accessibility summary contains, how it relates to get_page_source, whether it can be used for assertions, or what the return structure looks like. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or experiment to use it correctly.

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 by explaining serverUrl and sessionId. It does not mention either parameter at all. An agent has no guidance on what serverUrl is for, whether sessionId is a session identifier from appium.create_session, or how the parameters relate to fetching and parsing page source.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('compact accessibility summary parsed from page source'), making the core function clear. It implies a distinction from appium.get_page_source (raw page source vs. parsed summary) but does not explicitly differentiate itself from other accessibility-related siblings like appium.assert_accessibility_labels.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as appium.get_page_source, appium.observe_screen, or appium.assert_accessibility_labels. The phrase 'parsed from page source' hints at a relationship to get_page_source, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context.

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