Get Interactive Elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (finds interactive elements and returns accessibility info with test selectors), covers 20 ARIA roles, and mentions filtering capability. However, it doesn't disclose performance characteristics, rate limits, or error handling, which would be helpful for a tool that might return up to 100 elements.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently convey key details (coverage of 20 roles, filtering capability). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to filter results. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of accessibility info and test selectors) to fully guide the agent.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by mentioning 'Use roles[] to filter to specific roles', which clarifies the purpose of the roles parameter beyond the schema's list of default roles. However, it doesn't provide additional context for includeDisabled or maxElements beyond what the schema states.

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 'find' and resource 'interactive elements on the page', specifying the types (buttons, inputs, links, etc.) and what information is returned (accessibility info plus multi-framework test selectors). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_accessibility_tree by focusing specifically on interactive elements rather than the full accessibility tree.

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 usage by mentioning 'Covers 20 interactive ARIA roles' and 'Use roles[] to filter to specific roles', which suggests when to use this tool for interactive element analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_accessibility_tree or query_accessibility_tree, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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