browser_inspect_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful safety behavior: content is returned as untrusted text and handlers are never executed. However, it omits error behavior for an invalid ref, what the return structure looks like, and any limits.

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 compact clauses with the safety-critical disclaimer front-loaded; no wasted words. The trailing usage sentence is somewhat narrower than the tool warrants, slightly limiting the front-loading of scope.

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 single-param read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description does outline what is returned (attributes and handler source). But the unexplained ref parameter and absent return-shape detail leave clear gaps for correct invocation.

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% for the single required parameter 'ref', and the description never explains what a ref is or where to obtain it (presumably from a snapshot). It does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads link/frame attributes and handler source, and explicitly disclaims execution. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like browser_snapshot or browser_find, though it doesn't name an alternative directly.

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?

Provides one positive usage context ('Use to identify legacy popup destinations'), which is a concrete scenario but far narrower than the tool's actual capability. No when-not guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given.

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