scan_page_elements

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool navigates, scans elements, and returns a screenshot, but it does not state whether it is read-only, whether navigation persists, or any limitations such as dynamic content handling. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose, then describes the output, then gives the usage context. Every sentence contributes to agent understanding.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, output structure, and usage context. It lacks an output schema but describes the return values in sufficient detail. It does not mention how the authenticated parameter affects behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for route and authenticated. No compensation is needed because the schema documents both parameters fully.

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 navigates to a page and discovers interactive elements, and lists the returned data (types, text, selectors, disabled state, screenshot). This is specific, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like take_screenshot or explore_page, leaving some potential overlap ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says to use this to understand a page before deciding what to test, which gives a clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool in many cases.

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