List Interactive Elements

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds context about sensitivity of returned metadata (visible text, attributes, values) and the need for acknowledgeRawCapture. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with no redundancy. Purpose, preconditions, filtering, and next step are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value; efficient and structured.

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 4 un-documented parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, preconditions, and next steps adequately. It could note that 'limit' caps results, but overall sufficient for an interactive element listing 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 0%, so description carries burden. It explains 'acknowledgeRawCapture' and 'selector'/'textContains' for filtering but does not elaborate on 'limit'. Partial compensation for missing schema docs, but 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'list interactive elements' and specifies the use case for obtaining stable selectors and metadata before actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_snapshot and browser_get_dom by focusing on interactive elements rather than state or raw DOM.

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 clear preconditions (active page, acknowledgeRawCapture), suggests filtering by selector/text on large pages, and recommends the next step (browser_observe_action_result). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is adequate for correct invocation.

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