watch_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool watches for style/transform changes, but does not clarify whether it returns data, attaches listeners, modifies the page, or requires interaction. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or output format, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral understanding.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant words or filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and its relation to sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the 'watch' produces, how it integrates with other tools like scroll_and_record, or what the user should expect after the duration expires. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively.

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 67% (selector and duration have descriptions, scrollThrough does not). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The meaning of scrollThrough remains unclear (whether it scrolls the page automatically or requires manual scrolling), and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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: 'watch a specific element' for 'style/transform changes during scroll.' This specifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like scroll_and_record and get_button_animations. However, it lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies the context ('during scroll') but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or why one might prefer this over scroll_and_record or get_animation_css. There is no explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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