getInputElementsInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool gets input elements but does not disclose what qualifies as input elements (e.g., text fields, textareas, editable elements), whether it filters hidden/visible elements, or what format the returned information takes. Behavioral traits beyond the basic action are absent.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a clear usage directive. There is no wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and intended use.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides the core purpose and usage but lacks important details such as what 'info' is returned, how the elements are represented, or how to map them to input operations. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an agent needing to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It could have explicitly noted that no parameters are required, but the empty schema already conveys this.

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 a specific verb and resource: '获取当前标签页的所有可进行输入操作的元素' (get all input-capable elements in the current tab). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_body_text or get_current_tab_info, and explicitly ties it to input operations.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: '对元素进行输入操作前优先使用这个方法' (prioritize using this method before input operations). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clearly scoped.

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