Ler página

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

The description implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Devolve' (returns) and the tool name, but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur. Given the absence of annotations, a slight clarity gain could be made, but it is still largely transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, conveying the core functionality and usage guidance in two sentences without unnecessary fluff.

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?

It clearly describes the primary output (text and interactive elements with refs) and how to use it, but does not detail the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., JSON format). Still, it is sufficient for the agent to understand what to expect.

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?

Both parameters have descriptive comments: tabId explains it targets a specific tab and defaults to the active tab (never the user's), and maxChars explains it truncates text with a default of 8000. This fully clarifies the parameter meanings.

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 returns visible page text and interactive elements with stable refs, and explicitly links to sibling tools arc_click and arc_type, distinguishing its purpose from those tools.

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 provides explicit guidance to use the returned refs in arc_click and arc_type instead of inventing CSS selectors, which tells the agent exactly when and how to use this tool compared to alternatives.

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