ui_tree_resource_action

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the action is 'safe', 'first-class', that the snapshot only provides hints, and that execution hits the live UI—all helpful for an agent guessing side effects. Still, it does not disclose what may be destroyed, what permissions are needed, or how errors from invalid actions are handled.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second adds a caveat about refresh. Every words 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?

A 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage demands a much richer description to be callable. The text explains the high-level concept of snapshot-based actions but gives no guidance on parameter selection, action possibilities, or scheduling—leaving an agent unable to construct a valid invocation reliably.

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 the description gives no meaning for path, index_path, snapshot_id, resource_uri, session_id, action details, or watchdog_timeout. The only hint is the mention of a 'node selected from a saved ui_tree snapshot', but it does not map any of the seven parameters to a concept, let alone syntax or defaults.

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?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb ('Run') and a resource ('a safe first-class UI action using a node selected from a saved ui_tree snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search or retrieve nodes by emphasizing the execution of actions, though it does not spell out what action values are valid.

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 context by noting the snapshot is used only for hints and the action is executed on the live UI via existing tools, plus a warning to refresh the snapshot after large UI changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over direct operations (e.g., click_button) or mention any exclusions.

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