Inspect element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the breadth and shape of what is returned (matched rules with stylesheet and line, inherited styles, listeners, a11y). It stops short of noting cost/size implications of large element trees or the default section set.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the DevTools analogy, then a compact enumeration. No filler and no restatement of the name/title.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly. Minor gaps remain: no note that unlisted sections are omitted by default or that inspection can be expensive on large/complex nodes.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond echoing sections like computed styles. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (inspects) and resource (one element), and enumerates the returned sections with a helpful DevTools Elements-panel analogy. It distinguishes itself from siblings like page_snapshot/find indirectly (those produce refs, this consumes them), but never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is implied: on-demand, single-element deep inspection rather than whole-page capture. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of choosing between ref and selector, which is the only real decision an agent faces here.

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