observe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific device states, has performance impacts, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with device screens.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of device interaction and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values (e.g., hierarchy format), error conditions, dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'startDevice'), or behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema (enum: 'android', 'ios'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it retrieves screen data, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra value like format details or usage examples.

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 ('view hierarchy of what is displayed on screen'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAllConfigs' or 'listApps', which also retrieve information but about different resources.

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. With many sibling tools for device interaction (e.g., 'tapOn', 'scroll', 'listApps'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'observe'.

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