clo_ui_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the permission requirement (Accessibility), that no bridge is needed, and that it returns a snapshot token. However it doesn't describe the output structure beyond the token, nor performance implications of max_depth/max_nodes — gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four compact sentences with no filler; the purpose, workflow, and requirements each earn their place. The only minor issue is a slightly jumbled ordering (requirements come last rather than being front-loaded with the purpose), but it remains efficient.

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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters (both defaulted) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage workflow, and prerequisites reasonably well. What's missing is parameter documentation and a clearer picture of the returned snapshot structure, though the tool's low complexity keeps these gaps moderate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters, but it mentions neither max_depth nor max_nodes. The parameter names with defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero value on how they affect the snapshot. This is a clear gap given the low 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 ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('CLO accessibility hierarchy, menus, dialogs, values and supported actions'). It distinguishes from the closest sibling clo_ui_action by describing inspection rather than action, and the mention of returning a snapshot token differentiates it from clo_ui_screenshot. Clear purpose, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides workflow context: 'Returns a snapshot token; use it for the next UI action' implies this should be called before invoking the action tool. It also states prerequisites ('No bridge needed', 'Requires macos extra and Accessibility permission'). However, it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use exclusions, leaving much to inference.

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