ui_read_text

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

The description adds behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the content is read 'straight out of the accessibility tree' and frames it as a verification step. This gives insight into how the value is obtained and why it is authoritative, without contradicting the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, no wordiness. The first sentence states the operation, the second communicates the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place and the key concept 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?

For a simple read tool with readOnlyHint and a fully documented schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (content), where it comes from (accessibility tree), and when to use it (verify something landed). No critical gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning; the detailed guidance about `app`, `path`, and the focused text widget lives in the input schema rather than in the description.

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 a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('content of a text widget') and source ('accessibility tree'). It also states the intent: verification that something landed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that send keystrokes or search for text.

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 explicitly frames when this tool is appropriate: to VERIFY that something landed after input, rather than trusting a keystroke arrived. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for read-verification tasks.

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