browser_get_visible_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The 'get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the stripping-by-default for token efficiency is a useful behavioral fact, but the description does not explicitly address side effects, missing-selector behavior, or the exact shape of the returned HTML.

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 filler. Every clause earns its place: the core action, the optional scoping, and the important default behavior.

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 read-oriented tool with three fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely sufficient: the return value is clearly implied as HTML, and the main options are covered. The absence of an output schema means a little more detail on return edge cases would be welcome, but the core contract is clear.

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 100%, so the baseline applies and the schema already documents selector, maxLength, and removeScripts. The description adds only the token-efficiency rationale and the default stripping context, which is helpful but not required for parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('page HTML'), with an optional selector scope and the default stripping behavior. It is specific enough to be understood at a glance, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling read/snapshot tools such as browser_snapshot or browser_get_visible_text.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no exclusions or preferred contexts. An agent must infer when to select browser_get_visible_html over browser_snapshot, browser_get_visible_text, or browser_evaluate.

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