get_computed_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output format and batch capability, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention error behavior, missing nodes, performance implications of batch requests, or whether styles are computed recursively. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences contain exactly the necessary information: action, target, output shape, and batch capability. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only getter with two parameters, the description is largely complete: it names the purpose, the return structure, and batch behavior. It could add a note about the shape or semantics of CSSProperties or behavior for invalid node IDs, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit return-type description.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both fileId and nodeIds. The description reinforces nodeIds with 'one or more nodes' and 'batch requests,' but it adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('computed CSS styles for one or more nodes'), and it clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_styles by focusing on read-only computed styles. The return shape ('map of nodeId to CSSProperties object') is also stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 its use case through the phrase 'computed CSS styles' and mentions batch support, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_jsx, get_basic_info, or update_styles. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, so an agent must infer appropriate usage from the verb and resource alone.

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