get_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully explains the two output modes (cleaned body HTML vs. outerHTML of the first match), but leaves open what 'cleaned' means, what happens when no element matches, and any permission or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then the mode-specific returns. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 no-required-parameter browser extractor with no output schema, the description should explain the return shape (it partly does) and which tab is targeted by tabId (it does not). It is adequate but leaves the tab-selection default and fallback behavior unstated.

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 33% (only maxChars is documented in-schema). The description compensates by defining selector semantics ('outerHTML of the first match'), but says nothing about tabId, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get HTML source') and then explains the two extraction modes, so the agent knows exactly what is returned in each case. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like query, snapshot, or evaluate, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The with/without-selector wording describes behavior rather than telling the agent which situation should select this tool over query, snapshot, or evaluate.

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