get_page_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the frames parameter being 'unstable' and potentially incomplete, which goes beyond the basic schema. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like performance characteristics, error conditions, or what 'page state' specifically includes (e.g., DOM structure, JavaScript state).

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure efficiently communicates essential information without waste.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral warning but lacks details on parameter semantics (especially session_id) and broader usage context. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, it should do more to compensate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the frames parameter ('frames mode is unstable'), providing some semantic context for that parameter. However, it doesn't explain the session_id parameter at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current page state and interactive elements' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('page state and interactive elements'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_element_info (specific element) or get_tabs_info (tab-level info) by focusing on overall page state. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives.

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 provides some usage guidance with the warning about frames mode being 'unstable and may not extract all details,' which implies when to be cautious with the frames parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_element_info for specific elements or extract_content for content extraction, nor does it provide clear prerequisites or exclusions.

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