query_dom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions a limit of 50 elements and the fields returned, but does not address error handling (e.g., invalid selector, no matches), performance impact, or state modification. For a read-only query, this is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. Every sentence adds value without any fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the simple schema (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states the query method, return fields, and element limit. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., no matches) or additional constraints, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100% with the only parameter 'selector' having a description 'CSS selector to query'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Query'), resource ('DOM elements'), method ('by CSS selector'), and return data ('tag, text content, attributes, and outerHTML for up to 50 matching elements'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_page_html' (full page HTML) and 'get_page_info' (page metadata).

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 for querying specific DOM elements on the current page with CSS selectors. While it provides clear context, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_page_html' for full source) or when not to use it. However, the context from sibling tool names helps differentiate.

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