wavexis_dom_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that the tool is read-only and may navigate to a URL, and specifies the return format (JSON with status, html, selector). This adds useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with 3 sentences plus a returns line. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 a well-described schema, annotations, and an output schema mentioned in the description, the description covers purpose, usage distinction, side effects, and return format. It is complete for the complexity of the tool.

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 has detailed descriptions for all parameters, so schema coverage is effectively high. The tool description does not add additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve the HTML of an element matching a CSS selector,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'wavexis_dom_query' by noting that tool is for metadata. This meets the highest standard for purpose clarity.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. 'wavexis_dom_query' (raw HTML vs metadata). It mentions side effects are none and that it may navigate to a URL if provided, providing clear context for when to invoke.

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