zen_dom

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

With no annotations, the description does not fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation but omits potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or performance impact. The scope of 'interactive elements' is undefined.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and parameters with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 a simple tool with one optional parameter, but it lacks details about the output format or structure of the accessibility tree. Given no output schema, additional context would be helpful.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains the tab_id parameter's purpose (optional, targets a specific tab, defaults to active). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 clearly states the tool gets the accessibility tree of interactive elements on the page, which is a specific and well-defined resource. It uses a clear verb 'Get' and distinguishes itself from siblings like zen_html or zen_page_text by focusing on interactive elements.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zen_html or zen_audit. The description only mentions an optional tab_id parameter but does not explain usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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