inspect_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only intent and specifies the style of information returned, but it does not disclose how elements are resolved, whether visibility is required, or what happens when ref is invalid.

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, packing the core purpose and output categories efficiently. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description omits critical context needed to call it: how to construct ref, what output shape to expect, and when this tool should be preferred over siblings. The lack of an output schema makes these omissions more significant.

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 only parameter, ref, has zero schema description coverage and the description never defines its format, origin, or accepted values. 'Get detailed info about an element' only weakly hints that ref identifies an element, which is not enough for an agent to populate it correctly.

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 ('detailed info about an element') and enumerates the exact data categories returned: tag, attributes, bounding box, styles. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_attribute, get_text, and get_html.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose inspect_element over related siblings such as get_attribute or query_selector_all. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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