page_map

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details returned items (headings, landmarks, forms, links capped at 50, interactive elements with @eN refs, regions hierarchy, active_dialog, non-form controls) and explains scope behavior and token types. Adequate transparency for a non-destructive discovery tool.

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?

Description is relatively long but well-structured, front-loading purpose and listing details in logical order. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, description compensates by detailing return types and stable references. Covers key aspects of a multi-element structural map tool. No mention of error cases or performance, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Only one parameter 'scope' with schema description as CSS selector. Description adds that scope accepts semantic tokens ('dialog', 'main', 'sidebar') or region handle (@r1) in addition to CSS selector. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive structural map of the current page'), listing included elements (headings, landmarks, forms, links, interactive elements). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling action-oriented tools like click or fill_form.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use to discover page structure before interacting, or with scope to inspect a specific modal/dialog without background noise.' It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context suggests use before interactions.

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