get_element_image

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose whether the element must already be present, whether the tool waits or retries, how failures are reported, or how the cropped image is returned, which are important behavioral traits for a screenshot tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds meaning and the structure is appropriate for a simple fetch operation.

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?

The description is too sparse for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It omits the return representation, failure conditions, and any relationship to the sibling UI-inspection tools, so the agent lacks enough context to invoke it reliably in non-obvious situations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter detail beyond referencing a 'specific UI element'. It does not clarify how selector and strategy combine, what deviceId/platform mean in context, or how the cropping is derived, leaving the agent to guess at parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Get a cropped screenshot' of a UI element, which clearly conveys the core operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_viewport or capture_diff. It could be stronger by naming alternatives or noting the output type, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_viewport, capture_diff, or find_element, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., element visibility or discovery). The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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