ui.inspect_accessibility_tree

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

The description mentions that no action is performed (safe read-only operation), which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it should also disclose potential impacts on UI state, performance considerations, or timeouts. Missing details on return format.

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 sentence, no fluff. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details about output format and how to interpret results, but sibling tools are sufficiently different to avoid confusion.

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?

The description does not mention the single parameter `max_elements`, but the schema provides clear constraints and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could add context (e.g., why limit), but it's not critical.

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 it reads UI Automation controls without performing any action, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ui.capture_screen and workflow.stop_all. However, it could be more specific (e.g., 'accessibility tree' vs 'controls').

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 ui.inspect_application. The description does not provide any usage context or exclusions.

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