Inspect wrapping CSS

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that only same-origin matching CSS rules are inspected, which is a meaningful scope limitation. However, it does not describe output format, error behavior, or any other runtime traits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: 'computed wrapping properties,' 'same-origin matching CSS rules,' and 'for one element' are all substantive.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the inspection returns, but it only names the general result categories. It also fails to explain the viewport parameter, which is likely important for wrapping behavior, and leaves parameter semantics unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at 'one element' without explaining target, selector, or viewport. The role of viewport in wrapping behavior is especially unclear, and target/selector semantics are left to inference.

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 states a specific action ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('computed wrapping properties and same-origin matching CSS rules') scoped to 'one element.' It is clear and distinguishes the tool from fix/suggest/apply siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related detect_midword_breaks.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Sibling tools like detect_midword_breaks or audit_page are not mentioned, so an agent must infer usage purely from the verb 'Inspect.'

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