get_element_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it extracts the accessibility tree and returns interactive/text nodes, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, destructive potential, or performance impact. Some details are present but more would be expected.

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 consists of two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and output format, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could explain the Markdown output format in more detail. However, it covers the core functionality, when to use, and mentions the output is a hierarchical list with interactive/text nodes. Parameter behaviors are in the schema. Fairly complete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage across all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no extra value is given.

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 it extracts the accessibility tree for a specific element and its descendants, returning a Markdown list. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_semantic_surface', which likely covers the full page. So purpose is clear but sibling distinction is missing.

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 explicitly advises using this tool when context about a specific panel, modal, or component is needed without fetching the entire page. This gives good context but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like 'get_semantic_surface' for full-page extraction.

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