wavexis_dom_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state these. However, it adds value by specifying the return format ('JSON string with html and selector'). No behavioral contradictions exist. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides some additional context but not extensive.

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 (3 lines of main text) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns section is a bit redundant but adds clarity. Some fluff could be trimmed, but overall it is 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 complexity of the input schema (7 properties) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain session management (session_id), browser backend options, or timeout behavior. The agent would need to infer or guess these details, which could lead to errors.

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 description only mentions 'selector' and 'outer/inner' briefly, while the input schema has 7 parameters (url, outer, backend, headless, selector, session_id, wait_timeout) plus the nested input object. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the meaning or purpose of parameters beyond what the schema already provides. This leaves the agent under-informed.

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 the HTML of an element matching a CSS selector.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like wavexis_dom_get_attr (gets attribute) and wavexis_dom_query (queries elements). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from wavexis_dom_snapshot, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, success conditions, or when to avoid using it. With 40+ sibling tools, the agent needs explicit context for correct selection.

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