get_widget_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. It says it 'returns a JSON representation' but doesn't disclose behavior details: whether this is a read-only operation, whether it captures the current screen or the whole session state, what the tree structure looks like, or any filtering behavior related to summaryOnly. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary elaboration. Appropriate for the modest scope of the tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and an ambiguous parameter (summaryOnly). For a query tool that returns potentially large structured data, the description should clarify what the JSON contains, how summaryOnly restricts it, and how it differs from get_accessibility_tree. Given the low context in structured metadata, the description is under-developed.

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 only parameter (summaryOnly) has a minimal description ('If true, returns a filtered tree') that doesn't explain what 'filtered' means—filtered how, for what purpose? The description repeats the parameter briefly without adding meaningful semantics 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?

Clear verb+resource (`Returns a JSON representation of the widget tree`). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_accessibility_tree by mentioning JSON representation and widget tree specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_accessibility_tree or explore_screen. The description doesn't explain what distinguishes widget tree from accessibility tree, which sibling tools a user might confuse it with.

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