get_locators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'ranked locators with reliability scores,' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important traits such as whether this requires network access, potential rate limits, error handling (e.g., if the element isn't found), or performance implications. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose and usage into distinct parts, but it's still efficient and clear.

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 tool's complexity (involves web analysis and ranking), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and usage but misses details on behavioral traits (e.g., how reliability scores are calculated, what 'ranked' means) and output format specifics. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior and results would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'elementDescription'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'elementDescription' is interpreted or provide examples beyond those in the schema). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all possible Playwright locators for a specific element on a webpage. Returns ranked locators with reliability scores.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Playwright locators'), and output format ('ranked locators with reliability scores'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_page' or 'generate_page_object', which might also involve element analysis.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this when user asks for locators for a specific element.' This gives a specific trigger for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to alternatives like 'analyze_page' (which might provide broader page analysis) or 'generate_page_object' (which might generate code).

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