get_box_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (dimensions list) but does not specify the return format, behavior on missing selector, whether it returns the first matching element, or any potential side effects. Since it's a 'get' operation, read-only is implied, but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and lists all relevant dimensions concisely in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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, no annotations, and only one required parameter, making the description the primary source of information. It lacks return structure, edge cases, and differentiation from 'get_layout_metrics'. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably predict the tool's behavior.

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 100%: the single 'selector' parameter is documented as 'CSS 选择器'. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline of 3.

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: '获取元素盒模型尺寸' (get element box model dimensions) and lists the specific dimensions (width/height/margin/padding/border/content). This is a specific verb+resource construction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_layout_metrics', which may overlap.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the sibling 'get_layout_metrics', an explicit distinction would help, but it is absent.

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