get_element_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or what happens on failure. It mentions the types of information returned, which is useful, but lacks assertions about safety or potential disruptions to the page.

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 sentence with front-loaded action ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to scan. The leading emoji '🆕' adds minor noise but does not detract significantly. It is efficient, though slightly vague in structure by not separating the info types.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters. The description does not explain the return format, error behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_accessibility_tree. Given the tool's simplicity as a getter, more context would be expected to ensure correct use.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema (e.g., selector, overlayId, includeStyles, includeAccessibility). The description adds only a high-level mention of 'computed styles, accessibility info, and state', which partially maps to the boolean flags but does not deepen understanding beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed information about specific elements'), listing concrete types of info (computed styles, accessibility, state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_accessibility_tree by covering a broader scope, though 'detailed information' is somewhat generic.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like get_accessibility_tree or get_visual_map, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is the description itself, which implies usage but offers no explicit direction.

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