Read Android UI tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a structured node tree with text, resourceId, content description, bounds, and interaction flags, which is useful. It omits caveats such as dump latency or device-targeting behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 states the command and the exact shape of the return value with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 four undocumented parameters, three of which appear to be redundant device selectors and one an output-format switch, the description is materially incomplete. It partially covers return values (helpful since there is no output schema) but says nothing about how to target a device or control includeXml.

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 all four parameters (serial, deviceId, deviceName, includeXml) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it completely fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to guess how to select a device or request raw XML.

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+resource ('Run uiautomator dump', 'Android UI tree') and enumerates the returned node fields, so an agent knows what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish this dump from the similarly oriented sibling 'android_app_snapshot' or 'adb_screenshot'.

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?

The description only states what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use conditions, no alternatives comparison (e.g., adb_screenshot vs this for text extraction), and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the title and verb.

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