Get Element State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds 'page/viewport geometry' as a specific scope, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool waits for the element (though a timeout parameter exists), what happens if the element is not found, or what exactly constitutes 'state'. This is consistent with annotations but adds only moderate context beyond them.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Return' and immediately states the resource. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition, earning a top score.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description is vague about what 'state' includes (e.g., visibility, enabled, bounding rect) and does not contextualize when this tool is preferable over other element_get_* siblings. Given the complex selector schema and the large sibling list, the description feels incomplete for an agent to confidently select this tool without additional inference.

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?

The description mentions 'a selector or accessibility target,' which maps to the selector parameter's two variants, but it does not explain the structured sub-fields like shadow_hosts or frame_selectors. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for these. The timeout parameter is not mentioned in the description at all. Since schema coverage is 50% (only selector and timeout on the top level), the description adds some clarity but does not fully compensate for the undocumented timeout behavior.

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 'Return DrissionPage element state and page/viewport geometry for a selector or accessibility target.' This specifies a concrete verb and resource, and the mention of state and geometry distinguishes it from sibling getters like element_get_text, element_get_attribute, and element_get_property.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like checking visibility, dimensions, or viewport position, nor does it exclude cases handled by other element getters. There is no explicit comparison or reference to sibling tools.

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