ui_read_text

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description details the 5 strategies tried in order, the automatic fallback for CLR type names, and the inclusion of a 'source' field in the response. This adds valuable behavioral context.

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 concise (3 sentences plus a parameter list), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the extraction strategy and fallback behavior. However, it omits details about error cases (e.g., element not found) and the full output format.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning to each parameter (e.g., 'AutomationId property', 'Element's Name/Title property'). It does not clarify mutual exclusivity, optionality, or how parameters interact.

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?

Clearly states 'Read text content from a UI element using multi-strategy extraction', providing a specific verb (read), resource (text content from UI element), and methodology. Distinguishes from sibling UI tools that perform other actions like clicking or querying.

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?

Implies usage for reading text from UI elements but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings. While it describes the extraction strategy, it does not help the agent decide between this and similar tools like ui_get_selected_item.

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