element_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb '查看' (view/look up) makes the read-only nature clear, and the list of returned fields tells the agent what to expect. It doesn't discuss invalid/stale refs or error behavior, but for a simple inspection tool this is a minor gap.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and output fields, the second adds the usage context. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the main need: what the tool returns and when to use it. The main missing piece is the provenance/lifetime of the ref value, but the sibling tool list and simple signature keep this a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must explain the ref parameter; it only restates '按 ref' (by ref) as a lookup key. It never says what a ref is, where it comes from (e.g., get_ui_tree/find_element), or that it must be from the current UI snapshot. This leaves the only parameter under-specified.

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 ('view') and names the resource ('single element by ref'), then enumerates exactly what detail fields are returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click/type_text (which perform actions) and get_ui_tree/find_element (which search/collect elements) without needing to open the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit usage context: use before click/type to confirm the target element and its available actions. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full when/when-not structure, but the context is clear.

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