browser_get_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that omitting the target returns the entire page, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose return format or edge-case behavior, so it earns a mid-range 3.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and object, with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place by covering the core behavior and the default case.

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-only tool with one fully described parameter and annotations indicating safety, the description is complete. It states what is returned and the two modes (element or page), so no further details are necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and the property description is identical to the tool description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'raw HTML', with clear scope: a target element or the entire page. This differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_get_attributes and browser_get_links, which fetch different data.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to retrieve raw HTML of an element or page) and the optionality of the target. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the 'exclusions' criterion for a 5.

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