get_accessibility_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose the return structure, whether it is a read-only operation, pagination/truncation behavior, or how it differs from the snapshot sibling. 'Get' implies read-only but nothing confirms it or explains output.

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, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and easy to scan. It is concise but arguably too terse for the surrounding complexity.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a sibling that overlaps in purpose. For a tool the agent must distinguish from get_accessibility_snapshot, the description is too thin to be complete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter (sessionId) is undocumented in both the description and schema. With 1 param and required=sessionId, the description gives no hint of what the parameter is or what values are valid, so it fails to compensate for the zero coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('accessibility tree of current page'), which is clear enough on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_accessibility_snapshot, leaving the agent unable to tell which of the two to pick from the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this rather than the near-identical get_accessibility_snapshot, nor any stated preconditions. The presence of that sibling makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.

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