Element Context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail about selector resolution order, but does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is read-only or whether any permissions are required. For an inspection tool this is a moderate gap, not a severe one.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The selector-resolution sentence earns its place and is directly actionable for an agent.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered externally, and the primary required parameter is well documented. Missing pieces include optional parameter meanings and an explicit statement about side effects or read-only behavior, leaving the definition adequate but not fully 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 required `selector` parameter is well explained with the matching order (resource-id, exact text, then substring of text/content-desc). However, schema description coverage is 0% and the optional `device` and `xml_path` parameters are left completely unexplained, so the description only partially compensates.

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 focus: 'Deep dive on one node' and lists the outputs it provides (geometry, ancestry, siblings, collisions). It distinguishes from layout-wide siblings like inspect_layout by emphasizing a single node, but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 selector matching precedence is clearly specified, which tells the agent exactly how to target a node. 'Deep dive on one node' provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer.

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