get_interactive_map

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'clean JSON map' and 'ALL interactive elements', giving a sense of scope and output format. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like whether it includes iframe content, waits for page load, or performance implications.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and output. The extra phrase 'Perfect for AI understanding of page layout' adds contextual value without waste, making it appropriately sized 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 four parameters and no output schema, the description partially describes the return structure (IDs, types, labels, positions). It does not explain whether filters affect the output shape or if the result is paginated, but it covers the core fields sufficiently for a read-only mapping tool.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 fetches a JSON map of all interactive elements with IDs, types, labels, and positions. It is specific about the resource and output format, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_accessibility_tree or get_visual_map.

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 phrase 'Perfect for AI understanding of page layout' implies a use case but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs not-use guidance or mention alternatives. This is minimal implied usage context, not sufficient for a 4.

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