get_screen_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that OCR is used, which is a meaningful method detail, but it does not mention return structure, whether coordinates are included, behavior when no text is found, or any prerequisites such as the device screen being on or OCR being configured.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and method efficiently, earning every word.

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-only OCR tool, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the return format or the meaning of deviceId/platform. The tool is easy to understand at a high level, but not fully complete for autonomous invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters like deviceId and platform. It does not mention any parameter meanings; only the schema documents language and the platform enum. The description adds almost no parameter-level 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get all text visible on screen using OCR.' This distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like get_semantic_hierarchy by specifying OCR as the extraction method, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 phrase 'using OCR' implies this tool is for visual/text extraction from the screen rather than UI hierarchy or element lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_semantic_hierarchy or find_element. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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