page_state

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by noting that only interactive elements carrying a jevnav data-jevcid stamp can be acted upon, clarifying what 'visible/actionable' means in this tool's context.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The core output (URL, title) is front-loaded, and the important actionable-element detail is stated second. Every sentence carries meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only state tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the agent receives and the actionable-element stamp behavior without needing to enumerate return fields, which the output schema already covers.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage by virtue of being empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies here since parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only state snapshot: current URL, title, and the interactive elements jevnav can see. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as outline or styles, but the scope is specific and understandable.

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 this is the tool to use when you need the current page URL, title, or visible actionable elements, but it does not state when to use it instead of alternatives like browse, outline, or wait_for. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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