extract_element_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It implies read-only behavior ('Extract') but does not explicitly confirm read-only status, nor does it disclose what happens on no match, whether it returns all matches or the first, or error conditions. Minimal insight beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively captures the tool's essence without redundancy or filler. Every word adds value.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the return format, what happens if multiple elements match, or how tabId affects execution. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, including the enum for action and the conditional requirement for attributeName. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already communicates, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: extracting text or HTML attributes from page elements using CSS selectors. This specifies the verb, resource, and method, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_html or extract_api_data.

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 its use case—when you need to extract specific element data via CSS selectors—but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_html or navigate_and_extract_content. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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