computer_get_accessibility_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary of accessibility tree information, which implies a read-only inspection operation. It does not mention edge cases such as what happens if no window is focused or whether the result can be empty.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a brief justification of usefulness, and a clear returns clause. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 parameterless getter with an output schema present, the description covers the tool's purpose, general content, and return type. It could be more complete by naming sibling alternatives and noting behavioral edge cases, but nothing else is required to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parametersressing, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The input schema is already complete, and 'current window' is contextual rather than a parameter.

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 action (get) and the resource (the accessibility tree of the current window), and explains what the tree contains. It is distinct in resource type from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar inspection tools like computer_find_element or computer_screenshot.

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 implies when the tool should be used by mentioning that it is useful for finding clickable elements and understanding UI structure. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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