get_element_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It merely states it 'gets' elements, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or whether network requests are made. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 listing specific examples, which is efficient and front-loaded. It contains no wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with a clear statement of the return type first.

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 schema covers parameters and no output schema exists, the description explains the return value (DOM elements causing performance issues). However, it lacks detail on output format, pagination, or specific element attributes. It is adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well-described (url, strategy). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema description, so baseline 3 applies. The description focuses on output rather than parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific DOM elements causing performance issues', with explicit examples like LCP element, CLS elements, and lazy-loaded issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like images, JavaScript, or full audits.

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 implies use when needing element-level performance issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like full_report or get_full_audit. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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