Inspect a UI panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the two behavioral modes, the shape of the return (text, buttons, inputs), and cross-tool contracts (refs usable in click_ui, file inputs usable in upload_file). It omits failure behavior for invalid selectors and whether inspection has side effects.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two modes, then the return contents. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns and it does reasonably well: text, buttons with refs, inputs, or a list of overlay panels. It stops short of noting limits such as whether results are truncated or how nested elements are represented.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit to discover overlay panels' semantics that the description restates. The description adds the downstream purpose of button refs and file inputs but no selector syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource plus a scope boundary ('Inspect DOM outside the passage') and enumerates what comes back (text, buttons with refs, inputs). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling find_ui, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Gives explicit branching guidance for its two modes: pass a selector to inspect a known panel, omit it to discover overlay panels such as mod GUIs and dev panels. It does not state when to prefer this over find_ui or interact, so the alternatives half of the guidance is missing.

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