mimicus_explore_page

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

The description frames the tool as a pure inspection ("Find", "inspects only the selected open page"), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, i.e. an operation that may mutate environment/session state and is not safely repeatable. The description supplies no side-effect, permission or repeat-call context and never reconciles that mismatch, so an agent could wrongly treat it as a free, repeatable read.

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 action and its payload, followed immediately by the scoping constraint. No filler or restated name/title; every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a four-parameter, zero-schema-coverage tool the description leaves the agent guessing on pagination and filtering, and leaves the read/write semantics unresolved against conflicting annotations. That is not enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with all four parameters (sessionId, limit, offset, visibleOnly) undocumented, so the description must carry the load. "Current" and "the selected open page" loosely gesture at the session/page scope and the notion of currently-visible content, but pagination (limit/offset, max 50/500) and the visibleOnly filter are entirely unexplained.

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 (find) over a specific resource set (semantic sections, navigation, controls) and names the payload returned (geometry, selectors), so the agent knows exactly what kind of artifact it gets. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as mimicus_capture_view, mimicus_analyze_element or mimicus_search, which an agent must choose between for the same page.

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?

"This inspects only the selected open page" gives an implicit precondition and scope boundary (a page must already be open and selected), which usefully rules out cross-page/cross-tab exploration. It never says when to prefer this over the sibling capture/analyze/search tools, so selection still requires inference.

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