snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output format ('one per line: ref role "name" href=...') and the effect of some parameters, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it waits for page stability, permission requirements, or error behavior.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose before listing parameter effects. Slightly run-on, but every clause adds useful 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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return format and covers the key optional parameters. It omits details on tab selection and timeout behavior, but those have schema descriptions and the core usage is clear.

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 only 50%, and the description fully compensates for the three undocumented parameters: 'max caps the list', 'boxes adds rects', and 'selector scopes to a subtree'. It also adds meaning beyond the schema for format by explaining 'json for objects'.

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 'List' and resource 'visible elements and text with refs usable in other tools', making it clear this returns interactive element references rather than raw text or HTML. The mention of 'refs usable in other tools' distinguishes it from siblings like text, html, and count.

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 for obtaining element refs for later actions, but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of find, text, or html, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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