get_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Output truncated at 50k chars.' However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid selector, missing tab), scope of 'page' (current tab?), or other edge cases. The truncation note is useful, but the description remains thin on behavioral detail.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, 16 words, no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the truncation constraint is the only additional context, making every word valuable.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and a critical limitation. It says what is returned (HTML source) and the truncation behavior. It falls short of addressing edge cases like selector not found, but for a simple read tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'page or a specific CSS selector' partially aligns with the selector parameter, but it adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. tabId and outerHTML are not addressed in the description.

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 ('Extract'), the resource ('HTML source'), and the scope ('from the page or a specific CSS selector'). It distinctly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like extract_element_data, which focuses on structured data extraction.

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 implies when to use this tool (when raw HTML is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when to prefer get_html over extract_element_data or execute_script, so usage is only implied.

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