query_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Find' and 'Returns,' and specifies the output fields (tag, text, id, classes, visibility). It does not mention error cases or connection specifics, but the core read behavior is clear.

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 two concise sentences: one for purpose and one for return values. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple query tool with a well-covered schema, the description provides sufficient information about what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks explicit read-only confirmation and edge-case behavior, but is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by mentioning 'DOM depth filtering,' which aligns with max_depth, but doesn't elaborate on limit or connection_id beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: 'Find elements by CSS selector with DOM depth filtering.' This specifies a verb ('Find'), a resource ('elements'), and a method (CSS selector), distinguishing it from mutation tools like click_element and fill_element.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for querying elements, as opposed to interacting with them. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the phrasing.

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