get_selector_hints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds non-obvious context: the references are 'learned from real runs,' are ranked best-first, and have two distinct consumption modes (refs vs. raw values). It does not cover failure modes or edge cases, but for a simple lookup tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 is two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and ordering; the second adds provenance and practical usage nuance. 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 low-complexity, one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it explains what the tool returns, how results are ordered, and how to use them. The notable gaps are the undefined `platform` value space and the lack of explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `platform` parameter. It only says 'for a platform,' without specifying accepted values, format, or where the platform identifier comes from. This leaves the agent under-specified on the tool's only required input.

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 that the tool returns 'Known-good element references for a platform' and that they are ordered 'best first.' This is specific about the resource and outcome, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling browser-interaction tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful consumption guidance: feed refs back through `browser_state` where possible, and use raw values when a form renders differently than expected. However, it never explicitly says when to call this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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