chrome_dump_dom

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action (Get) with no details on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), error behavior (e.g., if selector not found), or return format. This is a sparse disclosure for a tool that could have edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is concise and easy to parse, earning a high score.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema documents all parameters, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks important context such as how to handle missing selectors or whether the tool is safe for read-only operations, especially in the absence of annotations. The description is adequate but not rich enough to be fully 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with parameter descriptions for all three optional parameters. The tool description repeats the concept of 'specific element' which aligns with the schema's selector description but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the DOM HTML of the page or a specific element.' This specifies the verb (Get), resource (DOM HTML), and scope (page or element), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chrome_screenshot (visual) or chrome_evaluate (JavaScript execution).

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 usage for retrieving HTML but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like chrome_evaluate or state when to prefer this tool. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and description.

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