inspect_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not state whether the tool executes JavaScript, what state it requires (e.g., page loaded), or what the return value looks like. It also does not disclose potential side effects or errors.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it omits essential details about the output and the nature of parameters, which makes it less useful than a well-structured description. It is not as extreme as a tautology, but it lacks completeness.

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?

The tool has a simple schema (one required parameter) but no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what details are returned, what format they take, or any behavioral preconditions. This forces the agent to guess or invoke the tool to learn, which is incomplete for a tool with zero output schema coverage.

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 tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it does not mention the 'selector' parameter. However, the input schema provides a clear description ('CSS selector of the element') with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves details for an element ('Get details of a specific element'), which identifies the verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' includes (e.g., CSS styles, bounding box, attributes), and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like interact or execute_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description only states the function without mentioning any context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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