browser_elements

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 that only visible elements are listed, that each gets a short ref, and that those refs are intended for interaction tools. It does not describe the exact output structure, whether the list is limited to the current viewport, or how refs behave after page changes, leaving some behavioral details implicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and scope, and the second adds the ref usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: visible interactive elements are listed with refs usable by interaction tools. It does not detail output fields or edge cases, but for a simple list tool the provided information is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke and use its results correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so the description does not need to document parameter meanings. It adds relevant semantic context by explaining how the returned refs are used, which goes beyond what the empty schema provides.

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: 'List visible clickable elements and inputs.' It also explains the ref (e1, e2...) mechanism, making the tool's core value clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analysis tools like browser_snapshot or browser_observe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful context: this tool returns refs for later browser_click/browser_fill/browser_select/browser_hover calls, and it advises preferring refs over raw selectors/text. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling tools like browser_observe or browser_snapshot, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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