ruyi_dom_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation but does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether it works on hidden elements, or whether it blocks until the element exists. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'read'.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the primary action and object. It contains no redundant or filler content, every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain the structure of the returned data, what happens when the selector matches no elements, or how pageIdx affects the operation. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 already describes selector and attribute, and the description adds context that multiple data types (text, HTML, form values) are retrievable. However, pageIdx is not described in either the schema or the description, and the interplay between the attribute parameter and the other data types remains unclear. Schema coverage is 67%, so description partially compensates but not fully.

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 a specific action (read) on DOM elements, listing the exact data types: text content, HTML, form values, and attributes. This distinguishes it from sibling DOM tools like ruyi_dom_click, ruyi_dom_input, and ruyi_dom_select, which perform different operations.

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 for retrieving DOM element information but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like ruyi_evaluate_script or ruyi_dom_select. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving usage to be inferred from the action verb and listed data types.

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