gui_observe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. The verb '观察' (observe) implies a read-only operation, and the description states it returns a screenshot and status, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention any side effects on the target system, or disclose prerequisites like requiring an active session. It adds some context beyond the schema but lacks full transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise ARGS list. Every line provides necessary information with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the primary behavior.

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?

Given an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not enumerate return fields in detail. It mentions the key return type (screenshot, status) and parameter effects. It could further explain session semantics or real-time capture behavior, but for a straightforward observation tool the coverage is adequate. Missing explicit mention of read-only behavior is slightly mitigated by the verb 'observe'.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults with zero descriptions, so the description's Args section carries the full semantic weight. It explains each parameter's meaning, including the allowed values for 'target' (browser|android|macos), the purpose of session_id, and booleans for screenshot and accessibility tree inclusion. This is a strong complement to the schema, adding critical context where the schema is silent.

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 clearly states it observes GUI targets (browser, Android, macOS) and returns screenshots and status info. It uses a specific verb 'observe' and names distinct resources, which distinguishes it from mutation tools like gui_act. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from vision-related sibling tools such as vision_inspect, so it's not fully distinct.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vision_inspect or health_check. There are no exclusions or context cues for choosing this over other observers/monitors. The intended use is implied by the name and primary sentence, but explicit usage guidance is absent.

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