inspect_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates a read-only discovery behavior and describes the output (interactive elements with CSS selectors and labels). It does not mention side effects, but the verb 'discover' and the focus on inspection make the non-destructive nature reasonably clear.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first fronts the action and the value proposition, and the second gives a clear usage directive. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter inspection tool, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. With no output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but 'best CSS selectors and labels' gives enough shape for an agent to proceed.

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 the schema is trivially complete and no parameter semantics are needed. The description instead explains what the tool returns, which is the only meaningful semantic context an agent needs here.

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 ('Discover all interactive elements') with a clear resource ('the current page') and enumerates the element types covered (inputs, buttons, selects, checkboxes, textareas, links). It differentiates this tool from siblings like get_page_source or find_elements by emphasizing interaction elements and their best selectors and labels.

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 says 'Use this before writing locators,' giving a clear, actionable trigger for when to invoke the tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for page element discovery.

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