browser_get_element_state

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the specific states checked, but it does not disclose the return format, behavior for missing elements, or any other side effects beyond what annotations already convey.

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 that front-loads the action and lists the relevant states without any redundant words. Every token contributes to the meaning, making it an exemplary concise specification.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and clear read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the set of states. However, given there is no output schema, it would be helpful to mention what the tool returns (e.g., booleans for each state or a single state). The lack of return-value detail is a minor gap, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the description largely 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?

The schema provides a complete description for the only parameter 'target' as 'Selector or snapshot ID of the element to check.' The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema's already high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Checks' and clearly specifies the resource ('element') while enumerating the exact states it can report: visible, enabled, editable, checked, or focused. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_get_attributes or browser_get_html.

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 by listing the states one can verify, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is inferable but not clearly articulated.

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