getElementDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns (bounds, CSS selector, position, attributes, computed styles) and mentions the optional children tree analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention caching behavior (relevant to the 'refresh' parameter) or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but without annotations, more explicit disclosure would be ideal.

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, consisting of three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then describe the output, and finally state when to use it. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description does a solid job of covering the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The schema handles parameter details fully. It could be more complete by noting error behavior or preconditions, but for a read-only retrieval tool, it adequately covers invocation and purpose.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by explaining the APOM ID usage and the children analysis feature, which aligns with the 'id' and 'analyzeChildren' parameters, but it doesn't add significant new semantic information beyond the schema. The description's mention of analyzePage output simplified context helps clarify the 'id' source, earning a 3 rather than a lower score.

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: 'Get detailed information about element by its APOM ID.' It specifies the resource (element) and the action (get details), and differentiates itself from siblings by mentioning it returns full details including bounds, CSS, position, attributes, and computed styles, plus optional children tree analysis. This distinguishes it from more specialized tools like getBoxModel or getComputedCss.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this when analyzePage output was simplified and you need complete information about specific element or analyze specific sections in detail.' This provides clear context and references a sibling tool (analyzePage). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific scenarios, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' rubric.

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