get_attribute

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that an empty string is returned when the attribute is absent, which is not conveyed by the annotation (readOnlyHint: true). However, no other behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, side effects, rate limits) are disclosed. The description does not contradict the annotation.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each adding unique value. No fluff or redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded with the purpose.

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 simple two-parameter tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, common attributes, and return value behavior. The schema covers the parameter details. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so baselines at 3. The description lists common attribute names, but the schema already provides examples. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers for the 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('attribute or property of a UI element'). It lists common attributes, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like get_text, is_element_enabled, or get_element_info. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_element_info, get_text, or is_element_displayed. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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