reveal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool does not click and that it covers native and ARIA variants for dropdowns, which is useful behavioral information. It does not describe the return format, possible state changes, limitations, or what happens for the truncated 'tabs' and 'accordion' cases.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. The enumeration by kind is efficient, but the description is truncated mid-phrase ('all tab pa…'), making the structure incomplete and reducing its usability as a reference.

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?

This is a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry substantial context. It explains some behavior and the meaning of 'kind', but it omits output details, 'ref' semantics, and full coverage of the enum values, while being cut off. An agent cannot fully understand what this tool returns or how to safely invoke it in all cases.

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 67%, so the schema covers 'kind' and 'frameId' but not 'ref'. The tool description adds valuable meaning for the 'kind' parameter by specifying 'all options, native + ARIA' for dropdowns and 'all tab panels' for tabs. However, it does not clarify 'ref' and the tabs part is cut off, so parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb ('Pre-extract') and resource ('hidden content') and emphasizes that it works 'WITHOUT clicking', which helps distinguish it from click-based tools. The breakdown by kind ('dropdown', 'tabs', 'accordion') adds concrete scope. However, the description is visibly truncated ('all tab pa…'), so the full range of behavior is not completely clear.

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 phrase 'WITHOUT clicking' implies this tool is for extracting hidden content without triggering UI interactions, giving some usage context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit. Sibling tools like click, read, and screenshot exist, but the description does not contrast against them.

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