Inspect the app UI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral content by listing what state surfaces are read (timings, frames drawn, live session, windows), but says nothing about freshness, permissions, or whether calls are expensive. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a modest value-add.

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?

A single sentence fragment with no wasted words, front-loaded with the subject 'The app state'. The colon-delimited list is compact, though the missing verb makes it read as a label rather than a description.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does list the state categories an agent will receive. However, it gives no sense of the shape or structure of that data, no usage context against the many sibling inspection tools, and no note on whether it is a snapshot or live stream. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-arg inspection tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 enumerates the data surfaces the tool exposes (panels, current tool, view, zoom, timings, windows, live session, home screen), which implies a read of app UI state, but it never states a verb or resource explicitly. It is essentially a restatement of the title 'Inspect the app UI' as a colon-delimited list rather than a purpose statement. An agent can infer what it returns but not what it does.

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 call this tool versus close siblings like inspect_document, get_metadata, or screenshot. No prerequisites, no condition that selects it, no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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