page_getElements

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return structure and the effect of withWxml, and mentions [index=N] syntax. However, it does not explain behavior on no matches, error handling, or the connection parameter's role.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description explains return fields and the withWxml option, but does not cover the connection parameter or behavior when selector matches nothing. Adequate but incomplete.

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 description must compensate. It explains selector and withWxml well, but completely omits the connection parameter, which is a complex nested object. Two out of three parameters are covered, but the missing one is significant.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets an array of page elements via selector, equivalent to page.$$(), and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like page_getElement by specifying it returns multiple elements.

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 for multiple elements via the 'equivalent to page.$$' phrase and mentions the withWxml option. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though sibling names offer context.

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