get_locator_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the tool's action ('provide guidance') but does not disclose side effects, return format (though output schema exists), or any limitations. It is not misleading, but it does not add behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing two important use cases. It is somewhat long but each sentence provides useful information, and the sections are clearly separated. No redundant 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?

The description, combined with the presence of an output schema, covers the main usage scenarios effectively. It explains why and when to use it for API and visual cases, which are the most specialized. The general case (any of the listed libraries) is mentioned but could be slightly more elaborated, yet it is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds significant value for the `library` parameter by specifying aliases ('requests'/'api', 'visual'/'screenshot') and detailing what guidance each subset includes (API cookbook contents, visual validation scenarios). This enriches the schema's basic description.

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 purpose: providing locator/selector guidance for specific libraries (Browser, SeleniumLibrary, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting specific use cases for API testing and visual validation, making it obvious when this tool is relevant versus others.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance for two major scenarios: API testing (library='requests') and visual validation (library='visual'), including details like 'BEFORE writing Evaluate-based assertions.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives beyond siblings, though the context makes it clear.

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