safari_screenshot_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output format (base64 PNG) but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., element visibility), error behavior if the selector is not found, or any interaction with the tab receipt parameter. For a screenshot operation, this is minimal disclosure.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It states the action, the input, and the output. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about usage, especially given the large sibling list. It fails to mention the alternative safari_screenshot or clarify when element-level capture is preferable. The return format is stated, but operational details are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly choose and invoke the tool.

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%: both parameters have descriptive text. The description itself adds no extra meaning about parameters, but the schema already documents them adequately, so a baseline of 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 action: 'Take a screenshot of a specific element (by CSS selector).' It specifies the resource (element) and method (screenshot). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling safari_screenshot, which likely captures the full page or viewport, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 like safari_screenshot or safari_snapshot. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would select this tool over others. An agent must guess based on the name and description alone.

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