resolve_uid_to_selector

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the operation fails if the element is gone. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate error conditions without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 one concise sentence with two clauses, conveying the core purpose and a key failure mode without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 one parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it clearly states the return (a CSS selector) and a failure condition. It does not need to explain more given the simplicity, though it could mention potential error types, but that is not essential here.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'uid' with 100% coverage, and the description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema already states (UID from snapshot). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra parameter insight.

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 'Resolve' and the resource 'UID' with the output 'CSS selector', distinguishing it from sibling tools that act on UIDs directly (e.g., click_by_uid, fill_by_uid). It specifies exactly what the tool does and its scope.

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 gives a useful condition ('Fails if the element is gone') but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The intended usage is implied from the name and purpose, but there is no direct comparison to other tools that might also produce selectors.

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