tor_screenshot_element

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds the 'native MCP image content' return format, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential caveats such as element visibility requirements, selector validity, or failure behavior. The description adds some context beyond annotations but not much.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and return format. It is adequate for basic usage, though it omits edge cases like missing elements or scrolling. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'CSS-selected element,' which implies the 'selector' parameter is a CSS selector, adding meaning to the otherwise bare schema field. However, it does not elaborate on selector syntax, required format, or limitations, offering only minimal extra semantics.

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 function: to screenshot a CSS-selected element. It specifies the verb (screenshot), the resource (CSS-selected element), and the output format (native MCP image content). This distinguishes it from sibling tor_screenshot, which is likely for full-page captures.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicit. The description says 'screenshot a CSS-selected element,' which suggests it is used when capturing a specific element, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit comparison to tor_screenshot or other tools.

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