chrome_get_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the safe, non-injection approach (CDP APIs) and a critical constraint (property name must be alphanumeric + underscore/hyphen only). This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover potential errors or return type nuances.

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, each adding essential information: the core operation, the safe CDP mechanism, and the explicit usage guideline. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple 2-parameter getter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by stating what value format is returned or how missing properties are handled, but given the tool's low complexity, the description is reasonably sufficient.

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 already describes both parameters (selector as CSS selector, property as name to retrieve). The description adds the same property-name restriction already present in the schema, so it offers little additional semantic value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: to get a property value from an element. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'without script injection' and pointing to chrome_execute_script as the alternative to avoid, making the tool's unique role obvious.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use this instead of chrome_execute_script for reading element properties.' This directly tells the agent when to select this tool over a sibling and scopes it to reading element properties, which is strong guidance.

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