get_interaction_tree

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It says output is 'compact JSON with numeric ids' and mentions 'limit', but does not disclose read-only behavior, whether it scans the entire DOM, or how it decides what is 'interactive'. No harmful omissions, but minimal 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's central role in selecting elements for many sibling tools, the description could elaborate on what qualifies as 'interactive elements' or the output format, though an output schema exists. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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 add value. It explains the 'limit' parameter caps element count, which is helpful. However, it does not mention the default value (150) or explain the effect of omitting the limit. Adds some meaning but could be richer.

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 tool lists interactive elements with numeric ids, and explicitly notes the ids serve as selectors for click/type tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools that consume those ids.

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 by stating ids are selectors, but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The context is inferable from sibling tools but not spelled out.

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