get_page_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and 'current page' clarifies scope, but the description does not disclose truncation behavior at maxLength, return structure, or error cases. It adds only modest context beyond the input schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and no redundant detail is present.

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 read tool with fully documented parameters and no required arguments, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps like truncation behavior and guidance on choosing 'structure' vs 'text' do not prevent correct use.

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 description need not add parameter meaning. The format values are already well documented in the schema; the description only echoes them, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('content of current page'), and enumerates the three output formats. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from siblings like get_current_url or take_screenshot.

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?

Usage is implied by the action and scope: agents should call this when they need text, HTML, or an interactive outline of the current page. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or any exclusion criteria are provided.

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