get-element-properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention what happens for non-existent elements, invalid property names, missing selectors, or whether the tool returns raw values, computed values, or serialized objects. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 clear sentence with no filler and no repetition. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from stating return behavior or edge cases (e.g., error when element is not found). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 the input schema already fully documents both `selector` and `properties` with examples. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'state information,' which hints at properties like checked or selected but does not materially extend what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and identifies the resource ('properties and state information of a specific element'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-element-styles, get-element-dimensions, and get-element-html by focusing on arbitrary properties and state, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus get-element-styles, get-element-dimensions, get-element-html, or browser-evaluate. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool list alone.

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