get_healed_locators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that this is a read-style retrieval operation and specifies the content of the returned mappings. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, but 'Return' strongly implies it.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds useful detail about the content of the result. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the scope ('from this session'), and what information the result includes. Minor omissions like behavior when no locators were healed are not significant given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter documentation is unnecessary. The schema already reflects this with 100% coverage, and the description provides all relevant context about the resource being returned.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('self-healed locator mappings from this session'), and clarifies exactly what the result shows: which selectors were repaired and what they were replaced with. This clearly differentiates it from its sibling clear_healed_locators.

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 clear context: this tool is used to inspect locator healing performed during the session. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the distinction from clear_healed_locators is intuitively obvious given the 'return' vs 'clear' language.

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