GetElementContent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so meaningfully by explaining auto-detection of element type and the different return kinds (text/HTML vs. image content for canvas/SVG). This adds context beyond the schema, though it does not cover failure behavior or timeout semantics.

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 two sentences with no superfluous wording. The core action is stated first, followed by the key behavioral nuance (auto-detection and return types), making it front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple getter, the description explains the main return behavior sufficiently, especially given no output schema exists. It could be more explicit about exact return formats (e.g., 'text/HTML' ambiguity, image encoding), but the essential calling context is covered.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only mentions 'CSS selector' and auto-detection, adding no new parameter-level details; thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('Get content from a DOM element') and its resource ('by CSS selector'), making its purpose unmistakable. It uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling getters like GetValue or GetConsoleMessages by specifying DOM element extraction rather than notebook values or console output.

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 to use the tool—whenever content from a DOM element is needed—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like BrowserEval or GetValue. No when-not-to-use guidance or excluded scenarios are provided, leaving usage context to inference.

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