browser_get_attribute

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, but it only states that the tool gets an element attribute. It does not mention return value format, error behavior (e.g., when selector or attribute is invalid), or whether the attribute value is a string or null. This lack of detail is a gap for a read 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 a single, short phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear. However, it essentially restates the tool name, so it earns a 4 rather than 5 for adding minimal new structural value.

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 simplicity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain at least what is returned (the attribute value) and any caveats about selector usage. It does neither, making the description incomplete for an agent that lacks prior knowledge of browser automation conventions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'element' to the 'selector' parameter and 'attribute' to the 'attribute' parameter, which provides basic semantics. However, it does not specify the selector syntax (CSS/XPath) or attribute name expectations, so the compensation is minimal but not absent.

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 '获取元素属性' ('Get element attribute') clearly states the action (get) and the resource (element attribute), distinguishing it from sibling getters like browser_get_text, browser_get_html, and browser_get_title. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 such as browser_get_text or browser_get_html. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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