Desktop: Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms the depth-scoped nature of the operation but adds nothing about output format or the size/cost of the dump, which matters for a tree traversal.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is an appropriate size for a one-parameter tool, though it is minimal enough that it leaves gaps rather than being maximally informative.

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 simple single-optional-parameter tool with rich annotations, this is adequate but incomplete: with no output schema, the description never explains what the dumped tree looks like (text, JSON, structured nodes) or its approximate size. That is the main missing piece an agent would want.

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 100% and the depth parameter, including its default of 3, is fully documented in the schema. The description restates 'to the specified depth' with no additional syntax or behavioral detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Dump) and resource (Windows UI element tree) with a scoping detail (specified depth). It differentiates reasonably from read-oriented siblings like desktop_screenshot or desktop_snapshot, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it is not.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as desktop_find or desktop_snapshot. The agent must infer that this tool is for inspecting raw UI structure before acting.

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