scout_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans for and returns interactive elements and DOM containers, implying it's a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, no mutations, or any other behavioral traits (e.g., performance impact, restrictions). The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 relatively concise, using three lines to convey purpose and output. It front-loads the main action ('List interactive page elements...') and provides details. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'repeated DOM containers' appears twice), but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context about what it does and what it returns. It mentions the type of output (numbered list) and the categories (interactive elements, DOM containers, common actions). For a simple zero-param tool, this is 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds context about what the tool returns (numbered list of elements, containers, actions), which helps the agent understand the output even though parameters are absent. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description meets it.

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 lists interactive page elements, DOM containers, and common actions. It uses specific terms like 'clickable buttons, links, inputs' and 'card layouts, list items', making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scout_inspect or scout_scan, which might also involve analyzing elements.

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 implies usage when you need to discover page elements, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scout_inspect for individual element details or scout_scan for accessibility). No when-not or condition-based advice is given.

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