get_uilayout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool returns, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only operation, potential performance implications, or how it interacts with the current UI state. The description is minimal beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, detailing the return content, and specifying the return type. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 that this is a read operation with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for the basic operation. However, for a UI inspection tool with many sibling tools providing related functionality, more context about when to use this specific tool would be valuable. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, which is efficient and correct for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Retrieves information about clickable elements in the current UI' with specific details about what information is returned. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('clickable elements'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_screen_xml or get_screen_info that might provide related UI information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_screen_xml or get_screen_info that also provide UI-related information.

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