Get tab order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it details ordering rules, output fields, the outOfOrder flag, top-frame-only scope, and exclusions for hidden/disabled/inert elements. This goes well beyond a minimal 'gets tab order' statement.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the first gives the core purpose, the second details algorithm and output fields, the third covers scope and exclusions. No filler 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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it explains what is returned, the ordering semantics, frame scope, and excluded elements. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret the result.

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 only parameter, sessionId, is already fully described in the schema, including why it is required. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Lists the page's tab stops in the order the Tab key reaches them.' It also clarifies the algorithm and scope, making it clearly distinct from generic structure or audit tools among its siblings.

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 intended use is implied by the description—inspecting keyboard tab order for accessibility—but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus an alternative. No sibling routing or exclusion conditions are provided.

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