element_getBoundingClientRect

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

With no annotations, the description adequately covers behavioral traits: it returns bounding rect after applying CSS transforms, supports cross-component queries, and notes a limitation (only ID and class selectors currently supported). It does not describe error handling or side effects.

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 concise with three sentences that front-load the main purpose. Each sentence adds useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 output schema, the description lists return fields and mentions a key behavior (CSS transform). However, it does not cover the 'connection' parameter, error scenarios, or what happens if the element is not found. This limits completeness for a tool with three parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'selector' and 'innerSelector' but completely omits the 'connection' parameter, which is a complex nested object. This leaves a significant gap.

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 tool returns bounding rectangle information (left, top, width, height, right, bottom) relative to the viewport, considering CSS transforms. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the exact geometric data returned.

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 a specific use case for cross-component queries using innerSelector but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparisons are made.

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