browser_dom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'Get', but does not state whether it waits for elements to load, whether it scrolls, or what happens with no interactive elements present. It provides the tab_id default behavior, which is helpful but minimal.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant given the single parameter, but not wasteful. It could be slightly more structured.

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 read-only DOM inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about return format, pagination, or handling of non-interactive elements. The complexity is moderate (accessibility tree), so more context would be beneficial.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that tab_id is optional and defaults to the active tab, which adds value beyond the schema's bare 'anyOf' type. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4 for zero params, but here one param is undocumented in schema and only partially explained.

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 (Get) and resource (accessibility tree of interactive elements) clearly. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like browser_find, browser_click, or browser_forms, which an agent might confuse when seeking element information.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a read of DOM structure, but with dozens of sibling tools for querying the DOM (browser_query, browser_html, browser_find), the lack of routing guidance is a notable gap.

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