element_getAttributes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns null for single missing attribute, errors for all missing, truncates results over maxBytes, and notes that object-type data-* attributes return string '[object Object]' via WXML. This exceeds expectations.

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 fairly concise for the amount of information conveyed, but it is a single block of text without clear separation of concerns. It could benefit from bullet points or structured formatting for easier reading.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (null for missing, error for all missing, truncation) but does not explicitly state that the result is an object mapping attribute names to values. For a read tool with multiple parameters, it covers most important aspects, but leaves a small 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 low (20%), but the description adds meaning for key parameters: names (list of attribute names), maxBytes (truncation threshold), selector/innerSelector (targeting). However, it does not explicitly describe the return type or the format of the results, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it reads WXML attributes (e.g., class, id, data-index) and distinguishes itself from element_getStyles for CSS styles. The verb '读取' (read) and resource 'WXML 特性值' (WXML attribute values) make the purpose specific.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (read attributes) and when not (CSS styles -> use element_getStyles). Provides guidance on reading custom component inner elements using selector/innerSelector, and warns about object-type data-* attributes, suggesting getBoundingClientRect instead. Also mentions truncation behavior with maxBytes.

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