pt_list_elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('List'), the 'visible' scope, and the output fields, which is helpful. However, it omits details such as whether hidden elements are excluded, whether the UI hierarchy is flattened, or any prerequisites like an active app—acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and object, then a direct usage hint, then output details. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and its purpose. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that it returns all elements including interactive inputs, especially given the sibling pt_list_inputs, but it remains sufficient for selection.

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 sole parameter (udid) has a clear description in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('UI elements'), and scope ('on the current screen'), with specific output details (types, labels, values, coordinates). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like pt_tap or pt_type_text, which perform actions rather than list elements.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find elements to tap or type into,' providing a clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but within the sibling set, it is the obvious tool for discovering available UI elements before interacting.

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