get_element_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what specific details it returns, any error conditions, or whether it requires prior calls. The phrase 'precise action execution' hints at a preparatory role but does not disclose concrete behavioral traits.

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, concise and front-loaded with the 'Step 2' context. It conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. The 'Step 2' prefix is useful but not essential, and the overall structure is clean.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes and what the return format is. It does not. It also lacks explicit context about how this step fits into a broader workflow beyond the 'Step 2' label. The description is adequate only as a minimal stub.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal context by linking action_intent to 'precise action execution', but it primarily relies on the schema's parameter descriptions. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action (Get detailed information) and its resource (specific element) with a stated purpose (for precise action execution). It is a specific verb+resource combo that is distinguishable from siblings like execute_atomic_action, but it does not explicitly compare itself to other tools.

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 only usage hint is 'Step 2' which implies a sequence, but the description does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. It lacks explicit guidance about prerequisites or relationships to sibling tools like list_navigation_elements or execute_atomic_action.

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