sleeper_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is read-only, no return format, no error behavior for invalid selectors, and no note on what happens if selector is omitted. The phrase "page/element" weakly implies the selector toggles the target, but this is minimal.

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 short phrase and is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity reflects missing content, not efficient communication.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, zero annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling family, the definition is inadequate: it omits usage routing, parameter format, and return expectations. Only the schema's partial 'profile' description provides any support, which is not enough for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 only 33% — only 'profile' is documented. The description's "page/element" phrasing adds partial meaning for 'selector' (present = element, absent = page), but 'tab' is completely undocumented in both places and no format, default, or matching semantics are given. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and largely does not.

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?

"Get page/element properties" states a verb (Get) and a resource (page/element properties), so the basic action is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like sleeper_state, sleeper_read, sleeper_extract, or sleeper_snapshot, all of which could plausibly return property-like data. The word "Get" is generic enough that an agent cannot confidently route to this tool over its neighbors.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions for choosing this over sleeper_state/sleeper_read/sleeper_extract. The only implicit hint is that a selector yields element properties rather than page properties, but this is left for the agent to infer.

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