browser_get_input_value

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it provides no behavioral details. It does not disclose what happens if the element is not an input, whether the value is returned as a string, or error behavior when the selector matches nothing. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized for a simple tool, front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter lacking explanation, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return types, element compatibility, or error cases, which are critical for an agent to use the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 0%, and the description adds nothing about the 'selector' parameter. It doesn't explain whether the selector is CSS, XPath, or some other format. The parameter name alone is insufficient for an agent to reliably construct a correct invocation.

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 '获取输入框值' translates to 'Get input field value', which clearly identifies the action (getting a value) and the resource (input element). It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_get_text or browser_get_attribute by specifying 'input value', though it doesn't explicitly state it's for input/textarea/select elements only.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_text or browser_get_attribute, nor does it indicate prerequisites or context for use.

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