browser_get_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states only the basic action without disclosing what 'attributes' includes (e.g., all HTML attributes vs. computed styles), whether the element must be visible, or any side effects. A score of 2 reflects minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, concise and directly states the core function. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity, e.g., by hinting at return format.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the returned attributes look like, how errors are handled, or performance implications (e.g., for dynamic pages). A simple tool still benefits from more context.

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 has one parameter ('selector') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond its existence. No hints about format, examples, or constraints are given, leaving the agent to rely solely on the parameter name.

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 purpose: 'Get all attributes of an element by CSS selector.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('attributes of an element'), and the method (CSS selector) distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_get_html or browser_get_page_info.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites (e.g., element must exist), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description.

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