page_map

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

No annotations provided, but the description details what the tool returns (headings with section sizes, landmarks, forms, links capped at 50, interactive elements with state and @eN refs). It also mentions the stable @eN reference for other tools, giving good behavioral insight.

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 yet complete, with front-loaded content listing what it returns, followed by usage guidance, and additional details. Every sentence adds value with no 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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers all major aspects: elements included, link cap, @eN references. It could be more explicit about the output structure (e.g., hierarchical tree), but overall it's adequate.

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 describes the 'scope' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining its purpose for scoping to a specific modal/dialog, which goes beyond the schema 'CSS selector' definition.

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 it gets a 'comprehensive structural map of the current page' listing specific elements (headings, landmarks, forms, links, interactive elements). It distinguishes from siblings like navigation, click, or fill_form by focusing on page structure discovery.

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?

Explicitly advises using it to 'discover page structure before interacting, or with scope to inspect a specific modal/dialog without background noise.' While it doesn't list exclusions, the context is clear and directly addresses when to use.

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