inspect_ui

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that the output is a hierarchy covering menus and native dialogs, and that returned paths go stale as the UI changes. It omits whether the call targets the active device, the cost/size of the response, pagination or traversal limits, and any permissions or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, followed by the critical staleness constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it says only 'Accessibility hierarchy' without describing the node/path structure an agent must pass back. The undocumented 'depth' parameter compounds the gap, though the ephemeral-paths warning is the most important thing an agent needs.

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 single parameter 'depth' has 0% schema coverage (type, default 7, range 1-14 only), and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot learn from any source what 'depth' controls or when to raise or lower it.

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 and resource: 'Read simulator Accessibility hierarchy', and adds scope ('including menus and native dialogs'). It implicitly contrasts with acting siblings via 'inspect before acting', but never names act_on_ui or explains how it differs from get_screenshot for UI understanding.

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?

'Paths are ephemeral: inspect before acting' gives a clear operational rule for when this tool must be called. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (act_on_ui, press_button, tap_screen) or stating when this tool should be skipped in favour of a screenshot.

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