List page elements

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses two non-obvious behavioral traits: returned ids are short-lived ("Ids are only valid until the next list") and the tool functions in both browse and focus mode. Those are genuine lifecycle and state constraints not present in structured fields. It stops short of describing return shape or how mode affects results, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding; the id-lifetime warning is placed after the purpose, which is the right order. Minor awkwardness in the comma-spliced element list, but nothing is wasted.

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 only two optional params, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, ordering, id lifetime, and mode compatibility, which is enough to invoke it correctly; the only minor gap is not clarifying selection against sibling enumeration tools.

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 100%, so both parameters (type, max_results) are already fully documented with defaults and bounds. The description's enumeration of element kinds loosely mirrors the ElementType enum but adds no new constraint or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the headings, links, landmarks, form fields or other elements of the web page or document") plus ordering semantics ("in page order") and an anchoring analogy ("like NVDA's Elements List (NVDA+F7)"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as nvda_find_in_page, nvda_find_objects, or nvda_get_object_tree, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: it references nvda_move_to_element for the returned ids and notes "Works in browse mode and focus mode," which tells the agent the tool is mode-agnostic. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus enumeration alternatives like nvda_find_objects or nvda_find_in_page.

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