safari_query_all

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose output fields ('tag, text, href, value'), which is useful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, how it behaves with no matches, or whether it waits for elements to appear. This is partial transparency.

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?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the return fields. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 simple query tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the selector input, the optional limit from the schema, and the returned fields. It could improve by explicitly stating that results are returned as a list/array, but the phrase 'all elements' already conveys multiplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents selector, limit, and receipt clearly, including the default for limit and the purpose of receipt.

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 and resource: 'Find all elements matching a CSS selector'. The word 'all' distinguishes it from singular element retrieval tools like safari_get_element, and the parenthetical return fields further clarify what the tool produces.

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 implies usage when you need all matching elements, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as safari_get_element, safari_verify_state, or safari_extract_links. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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