element_getInnerElement

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that withWxml can return large data, results can be truncated with a wrapper object, and maxBytes can be adjusted. It also mentions selector index support limitations. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior but it is implied.

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 reasonably concise but dense with information. It is well-structured: first states purpose, then usage, then details about withWxml and truncation, then selector limitations. Each sentence adds value, though some redundant phrasing exists.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested connection object, no output schema), the description explains inputs, behavior, and edge cases (truncation, Wxml size). It mentions return fields (tagName, text, value, size, offset) but does not detail the truncation wrapper structure. It is missing some error handling details but overall complete.

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 only 17% (connection only). The description adds meaning to most parameters: selector (scope element), targetSelector (query within scope), innerSelector (optional scope refinement), withWxml (return full Wxml), maxBytes (truncation threshold). It does not fully describe selector format (e.g., CSS selector), but provides sufficient context.

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's purpose: query a single child element within a scoped element and return a summary (tagName, text, value, size, offset). It distinguishes from page_getElement for root queries and implicitly from element_getInnerElements (plural).

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 explicitly says when to use (inside a container/custom component) and when not (use page_getElement for page root). It mentions alternatives for root queries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool element_getInnerElements.

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