get_element_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid ids, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. While the name 'get' suggests read-only, the description doesn't explicitly confirm safety or side-effect-free 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?

A single, concise sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no filler or repetition. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, which covers return values. The description provides enough context to invoke it correctly for a basic getter, though it lacks detail on edge cases and usage guidance (already penalized separately).

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 only parameter element_id is documented only as a string in the schema (0% schema description coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying it's an 'MCP id', which clarifies the type and origin of the parameter beyond the raw schema.

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 action (Get), the resource (detailed properties of a specific DOM element), and the method (by MCP id). It distinguishes from siblings like get_dom_tree (which returns the whole tree) and find_element (which locates elements).

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 a clear use case: you need an MCP id for a specific element and want its properties. This distinguishes it from broader tools like get_dom_tree, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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