browser_get_interaction_map

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 that the result is 'compact' and 'optimized for LLM', but does not explain how dynamic pages are handled, whether hidden elements are by default excluded, or if it is read-only. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the main verb. Every word adds value.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover parameter behavior, output structure (though output schema exists), or usage edge cases. The compact map concept is helpful but not enough.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. While parameter names (selector, max_elements, include_hidden) are somewhat intuitive, the description adds no meaning, leaving the selector semantics unclear. This is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Return a compact map of interactive elements') and explicitly mentions selector hints, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_get_elements or browser_accessibility_tree. The phrase 'Optimized for LLM context windows' clarifies its niche, making purpose clear.

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?

It provides context for when this is useful ('Optimized for LLM context windows on dynamic pages') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. While this implies a lightweight alternative to more detailed element retrieval, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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