Browser Get Element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content thoroughly and its read-only nature is strongly implied by 'get' and the pre-interaction inspection use case, but it never explicitly states there are no side effects, nor does it mention mode/session requirements or any rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return surface, then the sibling routing and use case. Two dense sentences with no filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by enumerating return values and giving routing plus use-case context. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the styles default list and the pierce/ shadow-DOM prefix. The description references the selector and 'a curated set of computed CSS properties' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail on ONE element by selector') and enumerates the exact return surface (tag name, attributes, bounding box, visibility, text, computed CSS). It explicitly distinguishes itself from browser_extract and browser_snapshot, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Names both alternative siblings and the conditions that select them ('text/attribute only', 'a whole page of elements'), then states when to use this tool ('need to inspect a single specific element closely') with concrete examples. Nothing is left to inference.

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