pt_list_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the internal mechanism (connects via CDP, walks fiber tree, finds onChangeText) and the return fields (name, placeholder, accessibilityLabel, testID, current value). It stops short of describing failure modes or prerequisites, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a mechanism explanation, and a usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 description explains what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and when to use it—all in a few sentences. It lacks an explicit prerequisites statement (e.g., Hermes debugger must be active) but this is implied by the mechanism. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing return fields.

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% for the single metroUrl parameter, which has a default and description. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all TextInput components currently rendered in the React Native app.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pt_list_elements by narrowing to TextInput components with onChangeText, and explicitly links to pt_fill_input.

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 provides explicit usage guidance in the final sentence: 'Use this to discover which inputs are available before calling pt_fill_input.' It names an alternative (pt_fill_input) and a clear workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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