get_page_source

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying the tool returns an XML tree and is intended as a 'source of truth' for UI state. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not detail any potential performance overhead or size limits of the XML output. The annotation supports the safe-read nature, and the description reinforces it.

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 just three sentences, each sentence carrying essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, and what to do with the result. There is no wasted text, and the key directive ('use as the source of truth') 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 zero parameters, a clear readOnlyHint annotation, and a definition that explicitly describes the return value's role and how to use it, the description is fully complete. It provides all context needed for correct agent invocation without needing an output schema.

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 description adds no parameter semantics because the input schema has no parameters, making this a baseline 4. However, it strongly clarifies the output's semantic role (source of truth, to discover Names and AutomationIds), which effectively compensates for the missing output schema. This is excellent context for the agent.

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 retrieves the XML representation of the current UIA element tree, using specific verbs ('Get', 'Inspect') and naming the resource ('current UIA element tree'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_element or get_element_info by describing a broader, structural snapshot of the entire UI state.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: after a UI change (navigation, dialog, window switch) or whenever unsure about the current state. It also provides a clear directive to inspect the result for element Names and AutomationIds, making the usage guidance actionable.

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