inspect_dom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels at it. It explicitly states 'Side effects: none (read-only)', discloses the return format ('full HTML or snippet with context markers'), and mentions prerequisites ('requires an active Chrome tab with loaded DOM'). This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond what structured fields would offer.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core functionality, then provides side effects, prerequisites, return values, usage scenarios, and alternatives - each sentence earning its place. The information density is high while remaining clear and readable.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, behavioral traits (read-only, side effects), prerequisites, return format, usage scenarios, and alternatives. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of structured behavioral annotations, this description provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions that the tool 'retrieves the complete HTML document or a contextual snippet around a search query' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('retrieves', 'inspect', 'find', 'verify') and resources ('HTML document', 'contextual snippet', 'page structure', 'elements by text', 'rendering'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'evaluate_js' and 'capture_screenshot', making it easy to understand its unique role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use this to inspect page structure, find elements by text, or verify rendering' and names specific alternatives ('evaluate_js for complex DOM queries', 'capture_screenshot for visual verification'). It also states prerequisites ('requires an active Chrome tab with loaded DOM'), giving clear context for proper usage.

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