survey

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it opens, reads, and closes pages/menus with Escape, performs no action, is refused while the user is in the app, and restores the view. It also states that the result includes a summary and a diff with missing landmarks flagged. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and safety context an agent needs for a UI-navigation tool.

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 purpose and key constraints are front-loaded and the description is not bloated. However, the parenthetical phrasing and the "Args:" formatting are a bit awkward, and "now" plus "never an action" add slight ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully document return shape, but it still explains the summary/diff result and missing-landmark flag. It covers the critical invocation constraints for a one-parameter UI-mapping tool: allowed app values, automatic alternative, refusal condition, side effects, and view restoration.

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 schema has no enum for the single required app parameter. The description compensates fully by specifying the accepted values: "codex" or "antigravity".

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 states a specific verb and resource: mapping the Codex or Antigravity interface by opening/reading/closing pages and menus. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish itself from any sibling tool by name or explain why one would use this rather than nearby tools like track or where.

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?

It gives useful usage context: run it now, otherwise it happens automatically when the app version changes, and it is refused while the user is in the app. That covers a key when-to-use and when-not-to-use condition, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or describe prerequisites.

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