safari_get_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. It lists output categories but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it waits for the element to exist, what happens on selector mismatch (null vs error), or whether it can auto-scroll or trigger side effects. No annotation contradiction exists, but the behavioral disclosure is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, target, and key output fields in a compact parenthetical list. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or schema repetition. Every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool, this is minimally viable: the agent knows what the tool targets and roughly what it returns. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description still leaves gaps around result shape, failure behavior, and how this tool differs from similar element-inspection siblings. It is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (selector and receipt) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own documentation, which is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 operation ('Get detailed info') and the target resource ('an element'), and enumerates the specific data categories returned (tag, text, rect, attributes, visibility). This makes it reasonably distinguishable from page-level tools like safari_read_page or safari_snapshot, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling element-inspection tools such as safari_get_computed_style or safari_query_all.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like safari_query_all, safari_get_computed_style, or safari_accessibility_snapshot. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over similar siblings. Usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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