get_page_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers only the default selector. It does not disclose that output may be truncated (max_chars defaults to 15000), whether the page must be open, or what happens if the selector matches nothing. This is a significant gap for a tool with a truncation-capable parameter.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue here.

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 no explanation, but the description omits truncation semantics, page-state requirements, and any routing versus get_page_text. For a 2-param DOM extraction tool with 0% schema coverage, this is too thin to guide correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the selector default ('body') but says nothing about max_chars, even though truncation behavior is the more consequential parameter. Half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 HTML of an element'. The parenthetical '(default body)' clarifies the default scope. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_page_text (text vs. HTML), though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 indication of when to use this over get_page_text, get_links, evaluate_js, or screenshot. No prerequisites or context about which page state it operates on. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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