query_selector_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core read-only query behavior and the returned data (text/attributes of all matches), but it does not describe output shape, no-match/error behavior, or the effect of limit, so edge cases remain unpredictable.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: it puts the query verb and selector first, then the return type. It is concise without becoming a tautology, though it sacrifices operational detail for brevity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior and invocation constraints. It omits the meaning of limit, the return format, and what happens when no elements match, which leaves important gaps for an agent deciding how to use it.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate adequately. It adds CSS selector context and maps 'text/attributes' to the attribute parameter, but it never explains limit, and the claim of returning 'all matches' is ambiguous given limit defaults to 20.

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?

States a specific operation ('Query elements by CSS selector') with a clear object and result ('return text/attributes of all matches'). The emphasis on 'all matches' and text/attribute extraction distinguishes it from single-element tools like get_attribute or get_text.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tool is mentioned. The phrase 'all matches' implies it is for querying multiple elements, but the agent is not told when to prefer this over get_text, get_attribute, evaluate, or get_html, nor what the practical limits are.

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