get_value

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it only implies read-only through the word "get." It does not state whether the element must be visible or attached, what happens with a stale/invalid handle, or whether the call has any side effects on the page.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of specificity rather than being purely economical.

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 a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves too much open: the return type (raw string? structured state?) and handle provenance are unknown. An agent could invoke it correctly only by guessing.

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 0% and the description never mentions handle_id, so the agent gets no explanation of where the handle comes from (presumably get_tree or find_elements) or what form it takes. The single required parameter is the most likely source of misuse here, and it is completely undocumented.

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?

"Get the current text value or state of an element" names a specific verb (get) and resource (an element's text value/state), which is clearly distinct from action siblings like click, type_text, or screenshot. It falls short of 5 because "state" is left vague and no sibling is named for contrast.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus read-adjacent siblings such as find_elements, get_tree, or screenshot. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an element must already be located) or exclusions.

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