chrome_extract_interactive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Limited to 100 elements for performance.' It also details the output structure (text, role, selector, visibility, enabled status). It does not mention potential side effects, but the tool appears read-only, and the disclosed limit adds significant transparency.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the action, the second lists the output details, and the third gives the primary use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff, making it well-structured 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 (no params, no output schema), but the description adequately covers its purpose, output fields, limitations, and usage context. It could be slightly more explicit about edge cases (e.g., behavior when no interactive elements exist), but for its complexity, the description is nearly complete.

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, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given there is nothing to explain. The description focuses on output and usage, which is sufficient.

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 function: 'Extract all interactive elements with their text and metadata.' It specifies the exact element types (buttons, links, inputs) and metadata fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like chrome_extract_forms by its broader scope and explicit use case in relation to click/type tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover available interactions before calling chrome_click_text or chrome_type_text.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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