browser_get_elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'Get detailed information', implying a read-only action, but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as pagination limits (maxResults default 20), inclusion of attributes, error handling when no elements match, or any permissions/rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core operation ('Get detailed information about elements matching a CSS selector') and adds a brief usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or tangential detail.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema), but the description does not fully compensate for the missing output schema. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., text, attributes, position) or how maxResults and includeAttributes shape the response. While it gives a general sense of page structure understanding, it leaves the response format ambiguous. This is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter (selector, maxResults, includeAttributes). The description adds only the high-level notion of 'matching a CSS selector', which maps to the required selector parameter. It does not add meaning beyond the schema for maxResults or includeAttributes, 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 tool's function: 'Get detailed information about elements matching a CSS selector'. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'elements matching a CSS selector' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like browser_navigate (navigation) and browser_extract_text (text extraction). The added context 'useful for understanding page structure and interactive elements' reinforces its purpose.

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 'understanding page structure and interactive elements', which gives situational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_analyze_page or browser_extract_text, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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