browser_element_is_enabled

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without detailing whether the call blocks, returns a boolean, throws errors on missing elements, or respects the timeout parameter. Important traits like side-effect-free nature (readonly) are not mentioned, leaving the agent to assume.

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 at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it is too terse for a tool with no output schema; it omits critical information like return type and behavior. Every sentence should earn its place, and while there is no waste, the content is insufficient for ideal 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 the tool's simplicity and high schema coverage, the description should at least clarify the return value (e.g., boolean) and what 'enabled' means. Without an output schema, the agent has no way to know the return type or possible errors. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., it does not explain how 'by' and 'value' interact or what timeout does). It meets the minimum but does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 'Checks if an element is enabled' clearly states the action and resource. It uses a specific verb and noun, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling element-state tools like browser_element_is_displayed or browser_element_is_selected, which would benefit from explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., element must exist on page), appropriate contexts, or when not to use it. Sibling tools include multiple element checks, and the lack of usage cues forces the agent to infer implicitly.

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