list_elements

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 states that the tool lists elements and returns selectors, which implies a read-only behavior, but it does not disclose whether hidden elements are included, what selector format is returned, or how scope/contains filtering behaves.

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 one focused sentence with no fluff, front-loading the main action and giving useful examples. It could be slightly more informative, but as a concise opener it earns its place.

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?

This is a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only addresses the purpose and partially the 'kind' parameter. An agent would lack critical information about filtering parameters, return format, and default behavior, so the explanation is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It only clarifies 'kind' with examples like links and buttons; the meanings of 'scope', 'contains', and 'limit' are left entirely to the agent to infer from names alone.

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 a specific operation: listing elements by kind, and adds what is returned (names and reusable selectors). It distinguishes itself from content-reading tools like get_page_content or read_page, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 an agent needs selectors for page elements, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over inspect_dom, get_page_content, or read_page. It also does not mention any limitations or prerequisites.

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