inspect_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., caching), rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'lazy loading' in the schema hints at performance behavior, but the description doesn't elaborate on this or other traits like response format or latency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full inspection data') and specifies key details ('including props, state, hooks'). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description should do more to explain how the tool behaves in practice, but it meets a basic threshold for a read-oriented 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'paths'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'paths' relate to 'lazy loading' or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 resource ('full inspection data for a component'), specifying what data is included ('props, state, hooks'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element_by_id' or 'get_component_tree' by focusing on detailed component inspection rather than identification or structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_profiling_data' or 'get_element_source', which might also provide component-related data.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected component or specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_element_by_id' (for basic info) or 'search_components' (for finding components). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context for selection.

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