get_computed_style

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens if the selector is invalid, whether the tool reads from the current DOM state, or if it is synchronous/async. This is a critical gap.

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?

While the description is a single sentence, it is under-specified and does not convey necessary information. Conciseness without completeness is not valuable. The description fails to earn its length.

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 single parameter with no schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or any edge cases.

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%, and the description does not explain what the 'selector' parameter should be (e.g., CSS selector, XPath, element ID). The agent has no guidance on how to fill the only required parameter.

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?

Description states 'Get computed style of element', which identifies the action and resource. However, it is vague because it does not specify what kind of element (e.g., DOM element) or how the element is identified. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_inspected_element' or 'element_from_point'.

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?

No guidelines are provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent has no basis to decide between this and other inspection tools.

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