dom_get_mutations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well by revealing that the tool returns a stateful buffer of changes since the last call and explaining the diagnostic meaning of empty results. It does not explicitly mention the default clear/drain side effect, though that is described in the input schema; the core behavior is still transparent.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the core definition and the practical use case with no filler. The most important information—what the tool returns and its temporal scope—is front-loaded.

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?

The description is sufficient for a low-complexity diagnostic tool: it explains what is returned, when to use it, and what an empty result means. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact record shape could help, but the description covers the essential decision-making context.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds context about when to use the tool but no additional parameter-level meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 for complete schema 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 names a specific resource (DOM mutations) and a precise temporal scope (since the last call), then lists the kinds of changes recorded: added, removed, or re-attributed, and where. This clearly differentiates it from static DOM inspection tools like dom_get_html or dom_query.

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 gives an explicit use case: call it after an action to determine whether the app re-rendered at all. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling alternatives, but the contextual guidance is clear enough to tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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