resolve_uid_to_selector

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

The annotation readOnlyHint covers the read-only nature. The description adds the failure condition 'Fails if stale' and implies that the tool returns a CSS selector, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and add one critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter utility with readOnly annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key failure mode. It lacks an explicit note about what 'stale' means, but the schema covers the UID source. The implied return value (CSS selector) is sufficient.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'uid' as 'UID from snapshot' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Resolve UID to CSS selector' uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly states the resource (UID) and the output (CSS selector). This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that operate on UIDs (e.g., click_by_uid) rather than resolving them.

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 lacks any statement about prerequisites, context, or explicit alternatives. 'Fails if stale' is a warning, not usage guidance.

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