camofox_query_selector

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 adds useful context about authentication ('Requires CAMOFOF_API_KEY only when browser-server authentication is enabled') and that it operates on the 'live DOM'. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what the exact return payload looks like, or error handling 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value (function, use case/alternative, auth note). There is zero waste.

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 simple query tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and authentication context. It could specify more about what 'element details' includes or the return shape, but the provided information is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by mentioning 'element details or a specific attribute' which aligns with the optional 'attribute' parameter, but it does not provide new semantics beyond the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('CSS selector in the live DOM'), and specifies the output ('element details or a specific attribute'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like camofox_evaluate_js by positioning it as the targeted inspection alternative without raw evaluate_js.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for targeted inspection without writing raw evaluate_js.' This names a specific alternative (evaluate_js) and a use case (targeted inspection). It does not mention any exclusions or other alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for selecting the tool.

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