dump_ui

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the output (dump of UI elements) but does not mention whether it is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It is clear it reads the UI state, but could be more explicit about its non-destructive nature.

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 short and efficient: first sentence defines the tool, second gives usage context, third explains the argument. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 the output schema exists, the description focuses on input and purpose. It explains what the dump contains and how to use it. However, it could mention whether the file is overwritten or appended, but overall it is sufficient for a simple dump 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?

Only one parameter (output_path) with a default. The description adds a line explaining 'Where to save the XML dump', complementing the schema which has only a title and default. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides necessary context.

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 it dumps the UI hierarchy as XML with specific element attributes (text, content-desc, bounds, class name, clickable state), and notes its use for finding elements before tapping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tap_screen or find_and_tap.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use this tool to find the right element/coordinates before tapping, providing a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use, but the context implies it's a preparatory step for interaction tools.

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