get_screen_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a best-effort behavior ('extract full HTML if possible'), which hints at fallback logic, but does not specify the response format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'Retrieve'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. The parenthetical about extracting full HTML is concise and adds value without bloat.

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 is simple with two well-described parameters, but the lack of an output schema means the description should clarify the return value. It mentions a download URL and optional HTML extraction but leaves the exact structure ambiguous. It is sufficient for a basic tool but lacks precision.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's generic 'The ID of...' descriptions, but the schema already fully documents both parameters.

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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('HTML code download URL' and potentially 'full HTML') for a generated screen. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_screen_image and generate_and_fetch_code.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with generate_and_fetch_code, leaving the usage context implied at best.

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