What the user selected in DevTools

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already in annotations, the safety profile is largely covered, and the description usefully discloses what is returned. However, it does not mention that clearInbox removes inbox items, which is a side effect that sits awkwardly against the read-only annotation and the description should have surfaced it.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the activating condition and then the two return categories. No filler, though the parenthetical field lists make it dense and slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted structure would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does name the key returned fields (selector, HTML, ref) and the inbox item types. The main omission is the clearInbox side effect, which leaves a behavioral gap for a two-parameter tool.

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%, so both tabId and clearInbox are documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of the returned inbox items ('with notes', elements or network requests) but adds nothing about tabId targeting or the destructive implication of clearInbox beyond what the schema says.

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 gives a specific verb and two clearly enumerated resources: the element currently selected in the Elements panel (selector, HTML, ref) and the items the user sent from the 'Kyte WebMCP' DevTools panel. It's clear what comes back, though it never names dom_inspect or devtools_reveal as the sibling alternatives, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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 opening clause 'When the user has DevTools open on the tab' states a precondition, which is useful context for invoking it. But it offers no when-not guidance and never routes the agent to alternatives like dom_inspect for programmatic inspection, so the selection logic is only implied by the environment condition.

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