self_heal_selector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fuzzy matching criteria (text, role, attributes) but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a new selector or element), behavior on no match, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the action, trigger, and method efficiently. The emoji is unnecessary but does not hurt clarity.

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 is relatively simple (3 parameters, no nested objects), but the description omits the return value and failure behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'find the best matching element' actually returns. This gap makes it only partially complete.

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 schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that textHint and roleHint are used for fuzzy matching, and mentions attributes (though no attribute parameter exists). This slight inconsistency prevents a higher score.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('the best matching element'), with a clear trigger condition ('when a selector fails') and matching method ('fuzzy matching on text, role, and attributes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click_by_overlay_id or get_element_details, which do not perform healing.

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 mentions the usage context: 'when a selector fails'. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose is evident from the context.

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