calibrate_selectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool persists selectors into a dynamic registry and discovers alternatives heuristically, but it omits permissions, reversibility, side effects on the live page, and rate limits.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and then adds a concise elaboration. It is efficient, though the second sentence slightly restates the verbs from the first without introducing much new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description sufficiently explains the calibration workflow, though it could be strengthened with usage conditions or prerequisites.

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%, and the single parameter 'force_recalibrate' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('test, discover, calibrate') and a clear resource ('DOM selectors against the live page'), making the tool's function immediately distinguishable from the job-search/application siblings. It also states the core outcome ('persists verified selectors into the dynamic selector registry').

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 when the tool is relevant ('if layout changes have occurred') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the described behavior rather than directly guided.

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