zen_explain_selector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the expected output (match count, sample matches, suggestions) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or limits. The description adds some value beyond the schema but lacks full behavioral detail.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the tool's output but does not specify how 'tab_id' affects behavior or mention any error cases. There is room for improvement.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the purpose of the 'selector' parameter but does not mention the optional 'tab_id' parameter, which could limit the tool's usefulness. It partially adds meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: diagnose a CSS selector by providing match count, sample matches, and suggestions for a more specific selector. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like zen_computed_style or zen_dom.

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 implies when to use the tool (e.g., when you have too many matches) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusion criteria are missing.

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