wavexis_dom_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Side effects: None; read-only. May navigate to url if provided.' This informs the agent about potential navigation side effects beyond the DOM query, which is not captured in annotations. It also mentions the return format structure (JSON keys).

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, provide a usage guideline, and summarize side effects and return format. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 complexity (multiple parameters, nested input) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides essential context: it explains the return keys (status, elements, count, total), notes pagination (offset/limit), and mentions potential navigation. It does not detail each element's fields, but that is covered by the output schema. It could improve by clarifying the relationship between session_id and url, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Return all matches (True) or first only (False)' for 'all', 'URL to navigate to' for 'url'). The description itself adds little beyond mentioning 'CSS selector' and 'paginated metadata'. Since the schema covers the parameter semantics thoroughly, the description's contribution is minimal, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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: 'Query elements by CSS selector and return paginated metadata.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wavexis_dom_get, which is for retrieving raw HTML of a single element. This provides a specific verb+resource and explicit differentiation.

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 the agent when to use an alternative: 'Use wavexis_dom_get instead when you only need the raw HTML of a single element.' It also notes that the tool may navigate to a URL if provided, implying it can also be used for navigation-based queries. However, it does not provide exclusions for when not to use this tool beyond that single sibling.

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