get_active_element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description's 'Get' verb supports non-destructive behavior. However, the description does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior when no element has focus, return value format, or error handling). With annotations present, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 13 words conveys the complete purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or waste.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case clearly. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., no focused element) and does not specify the return type or format of the element ID. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details. Per guidelines, baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description fulfills this without needing to explain parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('element ID of the element that currently has keyboard focus'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_element_info or get_text. It uniquely identifies the active/focused element, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 (e.g., get_element_info, get_text), nor does it mention when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., must have a focused element). Usage context is entirely absent.

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