Accessibility Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: depth/node-count caps, the requirement for Accessibility permission, and the scope options (whole app vs specific window). No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then lists return data, caps, and permission requirement. Every word earns its place, and the main information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (attributes + elementHandle), the scoping options, the limits, and the permission prerequisite. It doesn't mention error conditions or the explicit pid/windowHandle exclusivity rule, but the schema covers that, so the description is reasonably complete for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 100% and all four parameters (pid, maxDepth, maxNodes, windowHandle) are documented in detail. The description adds the general concept of caps but no additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Walk' to describe traversing the accessibility tree, and explicitly states the per-node return fields (role/title/value/description/identifier/enabled/frame) plus an elementHandle. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ax_find by describing the full-tree snapshot scope (app or window) and connecting to ax_invoke/ax_set_value.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a snapshot of the accessibility tree is needed, with optional scoping to a window. It also mentions the returned elementHandle is usable with ax_invoke/ax_set_value, which clarifies its place among siblings, but it does not explicitly exclude cases like 'if you only need a specific element, use ax_find'.

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