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. It explicitly states side effects are none (read-only), prerequisites require an active Chrome tab with loaded DOM, and describes the return format as full HTML or snippet with context markers. This is strong coverage. It stops short of 5 because it omits potential failure cases (e.g., no match, invalid tab) or rate limits, but for a read-only inspection tool this is nearly complete.

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 three sentences with no extra fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by side effects, prerequisites, returns, usage, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and scannable.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, safety (read-only), prerequisites, and return behavior. The mention of context markers gives a clue about the snippet format. It could be more explicit about error handling or edge cases (e.g., no match for query), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the two operational modes: full HTML when query is omitted, and contextual snippet with markers when query is provided. This maps directly to the query, before, and after parameters and gives the agent a higher-level understanding. It does not duplicate parameter details but adds conceptual grouping.

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 retrieves the complete HTML document or a contextual snippet around a search query. It specifies the exact action (retrieves) and resource (HTML/snippet), and explicitly differentiates from alternatives by naming them (evaluate_js, capture_screenshot). This leaves no ambiguity about what inspect_dom does.

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 gives explicit use cases: inspect page structure, find elements by text, verify rendering. It also names specific alternatives and the conditions that select them (complex DOM queries → evaluate_js, visual verification → capture_screenshot), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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