inspect_live_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that inspection operates on the live page and enumerates the returned dimensions: bounds, computed styles, visibility, attributes, state, role, aria, and parent context. This is substantial, though it does not mention error behavior or side effects; 'inspect' reasonably signals read-only intent.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing output categories. Every phrase contributes useful information, and there is no repetition of the tool name or schema content.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone, and it does list many return categories. However, it does not state that at least one locator parameter is expected when the schema marks all four as optional, and it omits xpath from the accepted locator modes. These are material invocation gaps, making the description minimally viable but not complete.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. However, the description enumerates only selector, LogicalNodeId, and selectedElementRef, silently omitting xpath. This inconsistency could mislead an agent into believing XPath targeting is unsupported, so the description actively detracts rather than adding value.

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 states a specific verb ('deeply inspect') and resource ('live DOM element on the active browser page'), and enumerates both locator modes and rich output categories. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from page-level or snapshot siblings even though it does not name 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 'live DOM element on the active browser page' language implies when the tool is appropriate, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as inspect_live_page, trace_element, or get_element_visual_state. Context is clear, but routing among siblings is left to inference.

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