Desktop Snapshot

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the app must already be running, whether the call has any side effects, whether refs go stale, or how large the tree output can be. Only the output schema covers the return shape.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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 three-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation and no annotations, the description leaves too much unexplained: app identifier format, the effect of compact versus full tree, and when a fresh snapshot is needed before acting on @refs. The output schema offsets part of this but not the invocation-side gaps.

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?

All three parameters (app, compact, interactive_only) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — notably it never says what form 'app' takes (name, ID, or window title) or what the two booleans change. The word 'actionable' hints at interactive_only, but only vaguely.

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 and resource: 'Capture the accessibility tree of an application.' The added 'with actionable @refs' distinguishes it from desktop_screenshot (pixels) and desktop_list_windows (window enumeration), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'actionable @refs' weakly implies this is the precursor to desktop_click/desktop_type, but the agent must infer that from sibling names rather than from the description.

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