get_accessibility_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe what the returned tree contains (nodes, roles, labels, states), whether it represents only visible elements, how large the result could be, or whether it reflects a static snapshot or live view. For an inspection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately minimal for what it conveys, though the brevity trades off against behavioral completeness.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the returned tree structure looks like or at least its characteristics. The description does not mention return format, hierarchy depth, whether semantic roles are included, or how includeRect affects output. For a tool whose primary value is the tree content itself, this is under-specified.

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% and the single parameter (includeRect) has its own description, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no further semantic context beyond the schema, but no compensation is needed since the schema adequately documents the only parameter.

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 'Returns the accessibility (semantics) tree' has a specific verb+resource, making the core purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_widget_tree or explore_screen, which could be confused with this tool when selecting which to invoke.

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 vs alternatives like get_widget_tree (DOM) or explore_screen. The agent must infer when an accessibility tree is preferred over widget tree or screen exploration, which is a notable gap for a GUI automation context with many similar browsing/inspection tools.

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