probe_dynamic_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does describe output content (text, attributes, HTML, interactive elements) and the 'detail' parameter's pruning behavior, but it does not explicitly mention side-effects (likely read-only) or the polling/waiting behavior implied by wait_ms and poll_interval_ms.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the tool's purpose, target, output details, and parameter options efficiently. There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not visible in context. The description covers the core purpose and output format, but omits details about wait/poll timing, iframe selection specifics, and potential error conditions. This leaves some gaps for safe invocation, especially for a tool that interacts with dynamic UI after actions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'detail' (brief/full) and 'iframe_selector' via 'specified iframe', but does not explain wait_ms or poll_interval_ms. These parameters are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's function: probing visible dynamic layers (popups, message bubbles, dropdowns, date pickers, cascading layers) that appear after interaction, and returning internal text, attributes, HTML, and interactive elements. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('current page or specified iframe') distinguishes it from general page analysis tools like analyze_current_page.

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 implies usage after interaction with dynamic UI elements, and mentions the option to target a specific iframe. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, though the specialization is clear enough from the context.

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