camofox_query_selector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions requiring CAMOFOX_API_KEY and implies a read-only query on the DOM. However, it does not disclose error handling, whether the tool modifies state, or the response structure when no element matches.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides usage guidance, and the third lists a requirement. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, few parameters), the description covers purpose, usage, and a requirement. Minor gaps exist: no mention of what happens if the selector is invalid or matches nothing, and no description of the return format.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the attribute parameter's purpose ('return its element details or a specific attribute'), but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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: query a CSS selector in the live DOM and return element details or a specific attribute. It distinguishes from the sibling tool camofox_evaluate_js by recommending it for targeted inspection without raw 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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('Use this for targeted inspection without writing raw evaluate_js'), providing clear context. However, it does not exclude other scenarios or mention when not to use it beyond that.

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