element_getStyles

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: reads computed styles, error handling, truncation, and inner element access via selector/innerSelector. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but overall transparency is strong.

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 very concise, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds specific, non-redundant information about usage and behavior.

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?

Covers core behavior and edge cases well but lacks description of the return format (e.g., object of style values). Also does not describe the 'connection' parameter. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains camelCase format for names, default 50000B for maxBytes, truncation behavior, and selector [index=N] support. Only the 'connection' parameter lacks description, but schema provides its details.

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 computed styles (element.style(name)) using a list of style names. The name 'element_getStyles' and sibling tools like 'element_getAttributes' show it's specifically for styles, distinguishing it from other element access tools.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: use camelCase names array, null for missing individual names, error if all fail, maxBytes truncation, and innerSelector for inner elements. It implies appropriate use cases but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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