webview_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool lists WebViews, resolves a CSS selector, returns tap coordinates, defaults to interactive elements, and requires isInspectable=true. This is adequate for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then provides context. It is informative without wasted sentences, though slightly lengthy. It 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the core functionality, prerequisites, default behavior, and what the tool returns. It is fairly complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the overall purpose, how parameters interact (e.g., webviewId optional, max default), and the default selector for interactive elements.

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 the tool lists embedded WebViews and resolves a CSS selector to DOM elements with absolute on-screen tap coordinates. It distinguishes itself from coordinate tools by solving the 'WebView content is opaque' limitation, differentiating it from siblings like inspect_screen and tap_on.

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 mentions when to use: for inspecting WebViews when coordinate tools fail due to opaque content. It notes the prerequisite that WKWebView must be inspectable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for native UI or when not to use it.

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