inspect_element_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must describe behavior. It mentions inspecting visibility, position, shadow DOM, overlays, etc., implying a read-only diagnostic tool, but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the page or have side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about safety.

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: two short paragraphs plus a list of parameters. The purpose is front-loaded ('Inspect a single DOM element in detail'), and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at return values, but it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., JSON with element properties). Also, it lacks details on error handling or performance. However, the main use cases and parameters are covered, making it mostly complete for the tool's purpose.

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 0%, but the description explains all 5 parameters with concise semantics. For example, frame_context: 'Use 'main' or omit for top-level', and defaults for include_listeners and include_children are noted. This helps the AI agent understand parameter usage, though more detail on what include_children returns would improve it.

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 'Inspect' and the resource 'DOM element', and specifies the scope 'visibility, position, shadow DOM, overlays, and more'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'find_elements' and 'scout_page_tool' by focusing on single element detailed inspection.

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 explicit scenarios: 'diagnose why a click didn't work', 'check if an element is obscured by an overlay', 'verify shadow DOM context', or 'examine element state before interacting'. This gives clear usage guidance without needing to name alternatives.

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