iyke_dom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns refs that become invalid on subsequent snapshots or navigation, and that it offers filtering via 'query' and 'all' parameters. This covers key behavioral traits but could be enhanced by mentioning any side effects or performance considerations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, ref behavior, and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 absence of an output schema, the description offers important context: it mentions the return type (Playwright-style text plus structured JSON) and the invalidation of refs. However, it does not detail the JSON structure or the exact format of the return values, which would further aid an agent in understanding the output.

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 67% (two of three parameters described). The description reinforces the schema for 'all' and 'query' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The 'pane' parameter remains undocumented in both places. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Take an accessibility-tree snapshot of the focused pane.' It specifies the resource (accessibility tree) and distinguishes from sibling tools like iyke_click and iyke_type by explaining that it returns refs for downstream interaction.

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 tells when to use this tool: to obtain stable refs for interactive elements, which can then be passed to iyke_click, iyke_type, or iyke_key. It also mentions that refs invalidate on next snapshot or page navigation, implying when to re-snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives for similar tasks.

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