get_selected_command_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what information is returned, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens when no command is selected and command_id is omitted. The description provides output content but lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the specific information returned. Every phrase adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool provides.

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 tool with 1 parameter (fully documented in schema) but no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what information is returned but leaves gaps in behavioral context. It specifies the content types returned (DOM hierarchy, accessibility info, etc.) which helps compensate for the missing output schema, but doesn't address operational aspects like error handling or performance that would be important for agent decision-making.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining when to provide command_id versus relying on current selection, or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive context') and target resource ('a command target element'), listing the exact types of information returned (DOM hierarchy, accessibility info, surrounding HTML, interactive properties). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_command_info (which presumably returns different command metadata) and get_page_html (which returns full page HTML rather than focused element context).

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 implies usage when detailed element context is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like get_command_info or get_page_html. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is most appropriate versus its siblings.

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