inspect_screen

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the fallback between idb and maestro, the default compact mode behavior, and the WebView opacity limitation. No annotations are provided, but the description compensates well. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only hierarchy tool.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then detailing parameters, and finally noting limitations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrases like 'dramatically smaller'.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (flattened list vs full tree) and the key limitation. It does not specify the exact format (e.g., JSON or XML), but for an agent, this is sufficient to understand what to expect.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the default value of compact (true), what the compact mode does (flattened list of meaningful nodes), and provides a practical size comparison. This helps the agent understand the impact of the parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the current view hierarchy for a booted iOS simulator, specifying the platform (podium's target platform) and the underlying methods (idb or maestro). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like screenshot or screen_size, which deal with visual representations.

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 guidance on when to use compact:true vs false, and addresses the WebView limitation by advising an alternative approach (screenshot + coordinate calculation). It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make correct decisions.

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