element_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool gets a value from form components, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what happens for non-form elements. This is a minimal addit Ion beyond the name, leaving significant behavioral details undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('获取元素值') and provides a clarifying parenthetical about applicable element types. Every word earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify return values or edge cases, but it does not. The tool is simple (one parameter), but the description lacks details about what the returned value represents or how to handle non-form elements, making it incomplete for an agent to use it confidently.

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, element_id. The description does not explain the parameter or its expected format, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. Since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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: '获取元素值' (get element value) and specifies the resource type ('input/textarea 等表单组件'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like element_text or element_attribute. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 form components (input/textarea), giving context about when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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