get_attribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: agent-scoped tabs, cross-agent rejection with the TAB_NOT_OWNED error code, and tab auto-resolution. It omits edge cases such as what is returned when the attribute is absent, and the stray "cap configurable (default 8, 1-64)" reads like it belongs to a tab-listing tool and is confusing here.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the description is organized into clear When-to-use, Related, and Multi-agent segments. The multi-agent segment is dense and the tab-cap clause is likely irrelevant noise for a single-attribute read, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers usage, alternatives, and multi-agent ownership adequately. It stops short of describing the return when the attribute is missing, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description's attribute examples (href, src, value) largely restate them. It does reinforce the tab_id auto-resolution rule, but adds little beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get an HTML attribute value from an element") and the return ("Returns the attribute value"). It explicitly names the sibling reads it is distinct from (get_text, get_dom_snapshot), so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit "When to use" clause enumerating the exact cases (href, src, value, data attributes, ARIA properties) and a "Related" line disambiguating get_text and get_dom_snapshot. Both the when and the alternatives are stated rather than inferred.

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