browser_inspect_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'inspect' implies a read-only operation, and the description enumerates the kinds of information returned (layout, styles, accessibility), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes to the browser state or mention any requirements such as an active session, leaving some ambiguity.

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 is front-loaded with the verb 'Inspect' and the object 'an element'. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It provides only a high-level overview of what the tool does, without details on how selectors are interpreted, what the return structure looks like, or how flags like includeAncestors affect the output. For a tool of this complexity, more context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The phrase 'layout, computed styles, and accessible identity' hints at includeStyles and includeAccessibility, but it does not explain selector format, includeAncestors, or sessionId semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully offset the low coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'inspect' and identifies the resource as 'an element', enumerating the key aspects (layout, computed styles, accessible identity). It clearly conveys the tool's function, and the focus on a single element distinguishes it from broader tools like browser_get_dom_snapshot, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_dom_snapshot or browser_get_accessibility_issues. The intended use case is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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