get_text

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 states it returns text content but doesn't clarify failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the target isn't found), whether it waits for widget presence, or what happens with hidden/off-screen widgets. The timeout_ms parameter hints at waiting behavior but the description doesn't explain it.

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?

Single clear sentence that is efficient and straightforward. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. 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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't explain failure semantics, return value structure, or interaction with widget visibility. Given no annotations or output schema, slightly more behavioral context (e.g., what happens on no-match) would improve 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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters including example formats for the target string. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it confirms the resource type being retrieved but doesn't add semantic details about return format or edge cases.

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 states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('text content of a widget'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_widget_tree and get_accessibility_tree. It clearly identifies what data is retrieved, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those sibling read tools.

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 when to use this tool (retrieve text from a widget) but provides no explicit context about when to prefer this over get_widget_tree or get_accessibility_tree. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given. The tool name and description make usage reasonably self-evident.

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