Tap

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. However, the description adds no context about what 'inspect' returns (HTML? Computed styles? Bounding box? Properties?) or how it interacts with the openWorldHint=true environment.

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?

While brief at four words, this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. No information is front-loaded beyond the tool name itself; the sentence does not earn its place as it fails to clarify the parameter or output.

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 zero schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple similar siblings, the description is inadequate. It must explain the selector semantics and differentiate from inspect_dom/inspect_page to be usable, but provides neither.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'selector' parameter. The description fails to compensate by explaining what format the selector accepts (CSS selector? XPath? ID?), what it targets, or providing an example. Critical information gap.

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 the basic action ('Inspect') and target ('a specific element'), but fails to differentiate from four sibling inspect_* tools (inspect_dom, inspect_page, inspect_a11y, inspect_download). Given the crowded namespace, it should clarify what makes this single-element inspection distinct.

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 provided on when to use this versus inspect_dom (full document) or inspect_page (page-level metadata). No prerequisites or alternative tools mentioned despite clear overlap with siblings.

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