appium.get_page_source

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 only states the output is raw XML, but does not mention potential errors, session requirements, or that the output may be large. It is a simple read operation but lacks any caveats or context.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the core function. No fluff or unnecessary detail; it is appropriately concise.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the parameters, the structure of the XML returned, or when to use this tool over alternatives. An agent would likely struggle to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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%, and the description does not explain what serverUrl or sessionId mean. The agent cannot infer the purpose of these parameters from the description alone, making it impossible to correctly populate them without external knowledge.

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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('raw Appium page source XML'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like appium.observe_screen and appium.get_accessibility_tree by focusing on the raw XML output.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many Appium sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description.

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