zerodom_get_styles

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains that it runs in the real page over the shared chrome.debugger connection and avoids the ~300-property dump, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only guarantees, behavior on invalid node_id, or limitations (e.g., element nodes only).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before the implementation detail. The second sentence earns its place by distinguishing from eval_js, though it is slightly dense.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and implementation context well, but it omits any guidance on sourcing node_id. This is a noticeable gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions node_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It doesn't explain how to obtain or format node_id (e.g., from zerodom_find), which is a real gap for a required parameter.

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 the resource (computed styles and box-model dimensions for a node) and the operation (Runs getComputedStyle()), and differentiates itself from zerodom_eval_js by offering a curated property list. This is specific enough to distinguish from all siblings.

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?

It explicitly names zerodom_eval_js as the ad hoc alternative and frames this tool as the purpose-built version with a curated list, giving the agent a clear selection criterion. It stops short of stating exclusions or when not to use it, so not a 5.

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