get_dom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'bounded' adds a genuine behavioral note about output capping, but the description omits the default/max limits, how format selection affects the result, and the targetId focus requirement noted in the 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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resources, with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness is what causes the coverage gaps elsewhere.

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 six-parameter, zero-required tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how ref/selector/targetId/snapshotId interact or how the three formats differ in output, leaving the agent under-equipped to call 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only implicitly maps to the format enum (html/text/accessibility). It says nothing about ref, selector (defaults to 'html'), maxChars, or snapshotId, leaving five of six parameters unexplained in both description and schema.

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 gives a specific verb (read) and three concrete resources (bounded HTML, visible text, accessibility snapshot) plus the source (Typora), so the agent knows what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_element, query_selector, typora_snapshot, or typora_get_document_source, leaving the selection decision ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives, even though several siblings overlap heavily (get_element, query_selector, typora_snapshot). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line purpose.

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