get_element_visual_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only inspection operation and enumerates the specific visual aspects inspected, which gives the agent an accurate mental model. It does not disclose error behavior or the need for a live debugging connection, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to specifying what the tool inspects and in what context, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 description is sufficient for understanding the tool's core purpose and output themes, especially given the schema covers parameters. However, it does not clarify which of nodeId or selector should be supplied when both are optional, how the tool selects the element if both are provided, or how this differs from inspect_live_element. These gaps are notable given the rich sibling list.

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%, with both nodeId and selector already documented. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies here.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and a precise resource: detailed visual layout, occlusion, clipping, opacity, z-index, and viewport visibility for a live element. This clearly separates it from DOM-oriented siblings like get_dom_state and get_live_dom_snapshot, and from screenshot tools.

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 phrase 'for a live element' implies this tool is for inspecting elements in the live page rather than session snapshots, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over inspect_live_element or get_selected_element, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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