adb_a11y_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adequately describes the tool's behavior as a read-only dump focusing on accessibility elements, which is non-destructive. However, it could mention any prerequisites (e.g., accessibility service) or limitations.

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 three sentences long, no fluff, and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description helps by listing the output contents (roles, labels, states, navigation order). It covers the input parameter fully. A more explicit mention of output format (e.g., XML or JSON) would make it complete, but current level is sufficient for understanding.

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?

The sole parameter 'device' is described in the schema as 'Device serial', and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 dumps the accessibility-focused UI hierarchy, specifying what elements are included (roles, labels, states, navigation order) and what is filtered out (decorative/layout containers). This distinguishes it from siblings like adb_a11y_audit or adb_a11y_touch_targets.

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 usage for accessibility inspection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_a11y_audit. No 'when not' or specific usage context is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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