get_native_children

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating it is a read-only walk of the accessibility tree. It adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: details that it bypasses UIA, walks IAccessible, and returns simple children without HWND. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating it is non-destructive or whether it may have side effects, but overall it is thorough.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length, front-loaded with the main purpose and fallback advice. Every sentence contributes necessary technical detail and guidance. It could potentially be slightly more concise by removing some redundant technical explanation, but it is well-structured for an agent.

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 the tool's complexity (handling legacy accessibility), one required parameter, high schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description provides all necessary context: the exact technology, expected return structure, and failure fallback. It does not need to explain return values because the JSON field list is given. The agent can fully understand when and how to use this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the elementId parameter (window handle to walk via IAccessible) but does not provide additional constraints like valid formats or examples beyond the schema. It meets the baseline without extra value.

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 clearly states the tool is a fallback for legacy WinForms/ActiveX controls lacking UIA children. It specifies the exact technology (IAccessible/MSAA), the scenario (hand-written MSAA support exposing rows/cells as simple children), and distinguishes itself from standard UI Automation tools. This verb+resource+scope is highly specific and differentiates from siblings like get_page_source and find_element.

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 explicitly advises verifying with get_page_source/Inspect.exe first, providing a clear prerequisite. It also gives a when-not-to-use guideline: if supported is false or root has zero children, fall back to find_by_vision/analyze_screen and advanced_click. This directly helps the agent decide between tools, offering both context and alternatives.

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