adb_a11y_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool outputs only accessibility-relevant elements and filters decorative containers, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, the need for an accessibility service, output format, or whether it is a purely read operation. Agents may not know if auth or special settings are needed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and every word adds value. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 (single optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for basic invocation. It explains what the tool does and what it filters. However, it lacks details on output format or prerequisites, which would be helpful for agent completeness but not critical for this simple 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 100%, as the single optional parameter 'device' is described as 'Device serial' in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning or constraints beyond that, so the 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 view of the UI hierarchy, showing only screen-reader-relevant elements (roles, labels, states, navigation order) and filtering out decorative/layout containers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like adb_a11y_audit and adb_a11y_touch_targets by focusing on the raw tree rather than auditing or touch target sizing.

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 it should be used for inspecting accessibility elements, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it compared to alternatives. It lacks direct guidance on preferring this tool over adb_ui_dump or adb_a11y_audit, relying on implicit differentiation through the filtering detail.

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