Get Interactive Elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'summary' without specifying whether it returns visible elements, disabled elements, counts, or full details. It does not mention if it waits for page load, whether it scrolls, or if it includes hidden elements. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be used to decide subsequent actions.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and lists example element types. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus snapshot or other extraction tools, and the vagueness of 'summary' leaves room for misinterpretation. For such a basic tool, the description is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 only parameter is sessionId, which is self-explanatory and required. The description does not add any detail about it, and schema coverage is 0%. However, since sessionId is a standard identifier across sibling tools and the schema provides type and required status, the parameter is unlikely to confuse an agent. The description could have mentioned that the session must be active, but this is more of a usage guideline.

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 function: 'Get summary of interactive elements (buttons, links, inputs) on the page.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('interactive elements'), and enumerates element types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot or extract_text, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 implies usage when interactive elements are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like snapshot or extract_form. There are no exclusions or contextual hints about prerequisites (e.g., active session). The provided context is minimal but not misleading.

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