element_attribute

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (get attribute value) without disclosing return behavior, error conditions, permissions, or side effects. This is minimal even for a simple getter.

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 conveys the core purpose with examples. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description captures the core function but omits usage guidance and fails to explain element_id. With no output schema, it only partially implies what the tool returns (the value). Overall, 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?

The schema documents the 'name' parameter with examples (class/id/src), and the tool description repeats these examples. However, the 'element_id' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving its meaning ambiguous. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 '获取元素特性值（如 class / id / src）' clearly states the tool retrieves attribute values for elements, with specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like element_property, element_text, and element_value by specifying attributes (class/id/src) rather than properties, text, or values.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the clear purpose, not explicitly stated.

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