get_screen_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool returns screen layout as XML, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it blocks execution while waiting, or what happens if the screen isn't available. The 'is_wait' parameter hint suggests blocking behavior, but this isn't explicitly explained.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. The formatting with labeled sections enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool has an output schema (returns str) and only one parameter with partial documentation in the description, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a screen interaction tool with no annotations, it should ideally explain more about the XML format, what 'screen layout' encompasses, and how this differs from other screen-related tools in the sibling set.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates by explaining 'is_wait (bool): Whether to wait for layout (default: true)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'waiting' entails or the implications of setting it to false.

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's purpose as 'Get screen layout in XML format', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_screen_info' or 'get_uilayout' that might provide similar screen-related information in different formats or detail levels.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_screen_info', 'get_screenshot', and 'get_uilayout' available, the description doesn't explain what makes this XML format retrieval distinct or when it's preferable to other screen information tools.

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