Inspect page controls

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: only *visible* elements are returned, and results include human-readable labels plus stable selectors that can be reused for interaction. It does not state that the tool is side-effect-free, what happens on a page that hasn't loaded, or whether iframes/shadow DOM are covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (visible, input areas/buttons/links, labels, selectors) carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it only partially does (labels and selectors). For a zero-param inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should disclose whether results are a flat list, whether hidden/disabled controls are excluded, and whether the selectors are guaranteed reusable with sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly reflects that no scoping input is required—inspection applies to the page as-is.

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 names a specific action (identify) and specific resources (visible input areas, buttons, links) scoped to the current page. This differentiates it from browser_screenshot and browser_navigate by being a discovery/inspection operation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with browser_interact, which also targets page controls.

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?

"On the current page" implies a prerequisite that navigation must happen first, and the read-only framing hints this precedes interaction. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus browser_interact, nor any exclusion of cases (e.g., after DOM changes, on non-HTML pages). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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