Inspect native GUI controls inside a disposable Windows guest using auto, UIA3, UIA2, IA2, or Win32 backends. Retrieve control, raw, or content views without touching the host desktop.
Inspect via auto/uia3/uia2/ia2/win32 in a killable guest worker. Views: control/raw/content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hwnd | No | ||
| view | No | control | |
| backend | No | auto | |
| timeout | No | ||
| max_nodes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value with "in a killable guest worker," signalling isolation and timeout tolerance, but says nothing about output format, tree size, or failure behavior.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the two telegraphic fragments read as under-specified rather than disciplined prose. No sentence is wasted, yet the brevity costs comprehension.
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 5-parameter UI inspection tool with no output schema, the description omits what is returned (a node/element dump), what hwnd=0 defaults to, and how max_nodes/timeout affect results. Annotations cover safety but not the operational picture an agent needs.
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 0% across 5 params, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it enumerates the backend values (auto/uia3/uia2/ia2/win32) and view values (control/raw/content) without mapping them to the backend/view parameter names. hwnd, timeout, and max_nodes are entirely undocumented.
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 verb "Inspect" is present and the backend/view vocabularies hint at UI accessibility-tree inspection, but the object of inspection (a window's element tree via hwnd) is never named. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like sandbox_windows or sandbox_collect_evidence, so an agent must infer its role.
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?
No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The mention of backends and views describes the tool's options but never says when an agent should pick this over sandbox_windows or sandbox_screenshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.