adb_ui_dump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions parsing the view tree but fails to state important details like whether it requires the screen to be on, accessibility service, or performance implications. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or prerequisites.

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 only two sentences, all informative and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives format guidance. No wasted words.

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 partially explains return values ('coordinates, text, resource IDs, and interaction flags') but lacks precise structure or examples. It does not cover error conditions, screen state requirements, or limitations. For a complex dump tool, more detail is needed for full completeness.

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 100%, but the description adds significant meaning to the 'format' parameter by explaining the trade-offs (e.g., tsv for token efficiency, xml for raw data). For 'clickableOnly' and 'device', it merely restates the schema. Overall, the description enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 current UI hierarchy and parses it into structured element data with coordinates, text, resource IDs, and interaction flags. It distinguishes from siblings like adb_a11y_tree and adb_ui_find by focusing on dumping all elements rather than filtering or accessibility-specific trees.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use different output formats ('Use format='tsv' for token-efficient compact output, format='xml' for raw uiautomator XML'), but does not include when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond formats. The lack of exclusions is a minor gap.

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