tor_query_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'bounded page' which hints at pagination behavior, but it does not explain result ordering, empty-result behavior, or whether the selector returns all matches or just the first. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and 'bounded page' efficiently communicates the pagination constraint.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and key pagination constraint. It leaves some ambiguity around what 'bounded page' means precisely and does not mention how the results relate to the DOM, but for a simple read-only query tool it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the selector as a CSS selector and 'bounded page' implies limit/offset semantics, but it does not explain the meaning of limit or offset beyond their names and defaults. This is adequate but minimal compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action (Query), target (DOM elements), mechanism (CSS selector), and scope (bounded page). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tor_get_links (which extracts links) and tor_read_page (which reads page text).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical workflows, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool might be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied.

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