get_computed_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns computed styles but does not disclose any behavioral traits like whether it modifies the page, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. The lack of detail on side effects or limitations leaves the agent with minimal insight.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it may be too terse given the lack of parameter guidance; a second sentence could improve completeness without harming conciseness.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description partially covers the tool's function. However, it omits details on return format or error behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema to clarify responses.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'selector', and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema itself. No explanation of what kind of selector (e.g., CSS selector, XPath) is expected, which is critical for correct use.

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 returns computed CSS styles for an element, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click or navigate by focusing on style inspection and highlighting its utility for UI debugging.

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 mentions 'essential for UI debugging,' which implies a context but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are noted.

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