get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about what happens when the selector matches nothing, what 'fallback' or 'outer' do, or whether it errors, returns null, or falls back — all material for a read tool with a 'fallback' parameter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted prose. The parenthetical enum recap is somewhat redundant against the schema but keeps the tool's scope scannable.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain the selector-matching/fallback behavior and clarify the relationship to the dedicated get_text/get_html/get_attribute siblings.

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% across 6 parameters. The parenthetical list merely re-states the 'type' enum already in the schema, leaving selector, outer, fallback, attribute, and properties completely undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Get element information') and enumerates the kinds of data retrievable. However, it draws no boundary against strong siblings like get_text, get_html, and get_attribute, whose purposes it visibly overlaps with, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer this generic tool.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With overlapping siblings such as get_text, get_html, get_attribute, and count, the absence of any disambiguation guidance is a real gap.

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