safari_get_computed_style

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

Description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose details like whether it works on hidden elements, returns values or computed CSS text, or if pseudo-elements are supported. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial, but the simplicity partly compensates.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences with no superfluous words. Front-loaded action verb. Every sentence adds value.

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 description lacks details about the return format (e.g., object of property-value pairs), and does not mention limitations or special cases. Given no output schema, some completeness is missing, but the tool is simple enough that a 3 is fair.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the filtering capability, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves computed CSS styles for an element, which is a specific and unambiguous action. It differentiates from siblings like get_element or query_all by focusing solely on computed styles.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_element, evaluate). No when-not-to-use information. The phrase 'optionally filter specific properties' hints at usage but does not set context among siblings.

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