browser_get_attribute

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

With no annotations, the description correctly signals a read-only operation ('Get'), but it doesn't disclose behavior for edge cases like a missing attribute or nonexistent element, nor whether it waits for the element to appear. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the 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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and result. It lacks usage comparisons and edge-case behavior, but those are already penalized in other dimensions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents selector and attribute. The description adds no extra meaning beyond naming the operation, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 specifies a verb ('Get'), a resource ('attribute value'), and a target ('element'), which distinguishes it from sibling getters like browser_get_text and browser_get_html. It could be a 5 if it explicitly named alternatives, but it doesn't.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as browser_get_text, browser_get_html, or browser_evaluate. The intended context is only implied by the name and description.

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