browser_get_elements

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return limit (up to 50 elements) and included attributes (tag, text, href), but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects. 'Find' implies non-destructive behavior, but a direct statement would be clearer.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds output details and use cases. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return limit, key fields, and typical use cases. It also correctly scopes the operation to the 'current page,' which is important context for an agent. No critical gaps.

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 only defines 'selector' as a string with no description. The description adds meaningful context by specifying it is a CSS selector and that it applies to the current page, which helps the agent understand what to pass. It does not provide examples or formatting details, but the added semantics are sufficient.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Find elements matching a CSS selector on the current page.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_hover by focusing on reading/querying elements rather than acting on them.

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 practical context by noting it is 'useful for discovering clickable links, buttons, or form elements.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the use cases imply when it is appropriate.

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