get_element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the list of returned data: it doesn't explain how the element is identified, what happens with multiple windows or missing targets, or failure behavior. Given annotations carry the safety burden, this is thin.

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. It is efficient and well-structured, though arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 5 different ways to identify an element, 13% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is significantly under-specified. It omits any guidance on the identification parameters or the include* toggles, which is the primary thing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 13% (only targetId documented), so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions ref, index, selector, snapshotId, or the include* flags, leaving an agent to guess how to select the element and what the includeStyles/includeListeners/includeAccessibility toggles control.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('one element'), and enumerates the data classes returned (attributes, geometry, computed styles, accessibility, event listeners). This clearly separates it from bulk-DOM siblings like get_dom or typora_snapshot, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'one element' implies the single-target use case versus whole-document tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (query_selector, get_dom). Usage is only inferable.

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