Get App State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operability profile is covered. The description adds that the state is accessibility-first and that the screenshot is optional, which is useful context but does not reveal additional behavioral details such as return shape, scope of the captured state, or performance considerations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the core action and optional capability efficiently, earning every word it uses.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to explain what the captured state includes or looks like, and it does not. The required app_ref parameter is also left unexplained. For an agent to call this tool correctly, it needs more context about how to identify the application and what kind of state will be returned.

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 67%, with detail and include_screenshot already described in the schema. The description adds some meaning by tying 'accessibility-first application state' to the overall purpose and 'window image' to include_screenshot, but it does not clarify the required app_ref parameter, which remains undocumented and is essential for invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: capture an accessibility-first application state, with an optional window image. It is clear about what the tool does, and the accessibility-first qualifier hints at a UI-tree-like state, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like screenshot or list_windows, which overlap on the image/state dimension.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as screenshot, list_apps, or list_windows. The description tells the agent what the tool does but not when it is the right choice or when another sibling would be better.

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