browser_element_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it checks specific states (visibility, interactability, loading, occlusion, event binding) and returns reasons and fix suggestions. It does not mention side effects, but the name and purpose imply a read-only diagnostic operation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words: the first states what the tool does, the second states its purpose and output. Front-loaded with key 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 the tool's complexity (multiple diagnostic checks) and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool checks and what it returns (reasons and fix suggestions). However, it does not detail the output structure, which could help agents parse results.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it briefly summarizes the checks but does not elaborate on parameter semantics or constraints.

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 function: diagnosing element status (visibility, interactability, loading, occlusion, event binding) to determine why an element cannot be clicked or input, and provides specific reasons and fix suggestions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click (clicking) and browser_find_element (finding) by focusing on status diagnosis.

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 implies usage when an element is not clickable or inputable ('快速判断元素为何无法点击/输入'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_diagnose or browser_a11y_check. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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