Analyze UI modal stack, invisible backdrops, and viewport hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the CDP-via-Pengu-Loader prerequisite and the fallback to lol_status on connection failure, which an agent needs before invoking. No return-shape or cost details, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads what is inspected, then what is identified, then usage and prerequisite, with no filler sentences. Dense but every clause maps to a real behavior; slightly long selector list is the only mild drag.

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?

With no output schema the description must carry the return content, and it does by enumerating what gets reported (dialogs, blocking overlays, active plugins, focused element). Prerequisite and failure handling are covered; it stops short of describing the shape of the DOM tree output or size limits.

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 both maxDepth and includeOverlaysOnly are fully documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description hints at the overlays-only mode ('returns only active modals, invisible backdrops and viewport info') but does not add depth or format semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (inspects) and resource (CEF DOM hierarchy, modal stack, overlays, viewport route), and enumerates the exact signals it looks for (.modal-container, lol-uikit-dialog-frame, transparent overlays, rcp-fe-lol-* plugins, focused element). An agent can distinguish it from lol_dom_query or lol_eval from the description alone.

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?

Gives clear trigger conditions ('diagnose unclickable UI buttons, stuck modals, or verify client screen state') plus a prerequisite and a recovery path ('check lol_status if connection fails'). It does not name an explicit alternative such as lol_dom_query, so it falls short of a 5.

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