get_matched_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It does disclose the content of the returned list (selector, source file, line number, properties), which adds value. However, it does not clarify behavior for ambiguous inputs (e.g., selector matching multiple elements), error handling, or any limitations. The relationship between the 'selector' parameter and the 'element' mentioned is also unclear.

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 concise sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action and includes essential output details. There is no redundant information, and every element (verb, resource, output contents) earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and what is returned. However, it lacks any usage guidance relative to the many sibling tools, and the ambiguity about whether the selector identifies an element or matches multiple elements leaves a minor gap in understanding the exact 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 only parameter, 'selector', is described as 'CSS 选择器' (CSS selector). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The parameter's purpose is clear, but no extra syntax or formatting details are given.

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: retrieving a list of CSS rules matched by an element, including specific fields (selectors, source files, line numbers, and all properties). The verb 'get' and resource 'matched styles' is specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_computed_styles' by focusing on matched rules rather than computed values.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_computed_styles' or 'query_selector'. The usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but there is no mention of recommended scenarios, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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