mimicus_analyze_element

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates page state and interacts with a live page. The description corroborates with 'controlled interaction' and adds useful non-obvious context that it returns direct evidence without persisting a pattern repository, but it omits what the interaction actually alters and any repeatability/caching behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped by an enumeration of the notable capabilities. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given seven undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the non-persistence note is a helpful differentiator. However, with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations explaining side effects, the description is thin for the tool's complexity and leaves required-parameter intent unclear.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only hints at three of seven params (trigger via 'controlled interaction', scrollContainer, viewports). It omits the required sessionId and selector plus probeReset and reducedMotion, leaving meaningful gaps despite the partial 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Measure a selected component in the active page') and enumerates its scope: controlled interaction, scroll container, responsive viewports. It is distinguishable from page-level siblings like mimicus_explore_page and mimicus_capture_view, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over mimicus_interact, mimicus_capture_motion, or mimicus_explore_page, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'optional controlled interaction' implies you may trigger events, but the selection criteria remain unstated.

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