Get component tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it defines what counts against budget, states that LogBox/overlay/root-tag-context nodes are omitted entirely, and that oversized trees are capped and flagged truncated rather than returned unbounded. What it leaves out is failure behavior — what happens if the React DevTools hook isn't present — and required app/connection state.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then parameter semantics, then output filtering and truncation. Parenthetical examples are dense but each earns its place; there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers content of the returned nodes, exclusions, and truncation marking. The remaining gap is the response shape (nested tree vs flat list of nodes) and the runtime precondition for the DevTools hook, which an agent would need before calling.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: max_depth is explained as counting only developer-authored components, with host components, forwardRef/memo/context and styling HOCs explicitly free and repeatable. That is a real semantic rule an agent could not derive from the bare integer schema with a 1–10 range.

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+resource: a depth-limited React component tree obtained via the React DevTools hook, enriched with testID and text. The resource is distinct enough from neighbors like get_layout or read_screen_text to be selectable, but the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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: an agent can infer this is for inspecting the React component hierarchy on a connected RN app, and that dev-only infrastructure is filtered out. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'prefer X instead' guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as the DevTools hook being available or the app running in dev mode.

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