get_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes computed styles and bounding box, but does not specify return format, error behavior (e.g., if element not found), whether it waits for the element, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a simple read tool.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function and key output details. No unnecessary words or redundant information; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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's simple complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary intent but omits expected return structure and error handling. While not a complex tool, the lack of annotation and output schema means the description should provide more completeness, such as what 'detailed information' includes beyond styles and bounding box.

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 the only parameter 'selector' described as 'CSS selector for the element.' The tool description does not add additional semantics, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific element including computed styles and bounding box.' This specifies a concrete verb ('Get'), a resource ('a specific element'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dom or get_text_content by focusing on computed styles and bounding box details.

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 a use case—when detailed element info is needed—but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_dom or get_text_content. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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