get_selected_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. 'Retrieve' communicates that this is a read operation, and the selection mechanism is stated. However, it does not mention what happens if no element is selected, whether it can return null/error, or any other runtime behavior.

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 redundant words. Every phrase adds meaning: retrieve, DOM element, visually selected, user, Ctrl+Shift+Mouse Click, live browser.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description still communicates enough: what is being retrieved, how the selection happened, and where it happens. For this simple getter, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to document. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds relevant context about the user-driven selection mechanism that caused the element to exist.

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 ('Retrieve'), names the resource ('DOM element'), and specifies the exact selection mechanism (Ctrl + Shift + Mouse Click in the live browser). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_element_picker or inspect_live_element because it is specifically about retrieving a user-selected element.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used only after the user has visually selected an element in the live browser. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the precondition is clear enough for correct selection.

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