cyd_ui_tree

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses it is a read-only observation and lists what it reads, which is good. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like latency, performance impact, or whether it can be called repeatedly without side effects. The description is accurate and does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the tool's identity and scope. Every phrase adds value: 'detailed', 'visible', 'UI tree', and the list of attributes. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter observation tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does and what information it provides. Minor gap: it does not clarify if 'visible' means only what is on-screen vs. accessible view hierarchy, or if there are any prerequisites (e.g., app must be foregrounded). Still, strong coverage for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no parametersainer, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description clearly states what information is returned (ids, roles, labels, bounds, enabled state), which goes beyond the empty schema. This provides the necessary semantic context for the tool's output.

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?

Description states a clear purpose: reading the detailed UI tree with specific attributes (ids, roles, labels, bounds, enabled state). This is a distinct read-only observation tool. Some ambiguity remains with the 'Machine-specific (cyd)' prefix but this does not detract significantly.

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 implies usage for UI observation but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cyd_screen_mirror or cyd_input_state. It does not state when to use this versus alternatives, but the emphasis on 'detailed visible UI tree' suggests its role. Lacks explicit guidance on khi nào to use or not.

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