get_debug_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions optional artifact saving. It does not explain retry/timeout behavior, error conditions, side effects of saving, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the optional artifact-saving behavior without redundant detail.

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?

Despite the tool having six parameters, retry logic, and no output schema, the description provides no return structure, retry semantics, or usage context. The one-sentence description is too sparse for the tool's complexity, leaving gaps beyond what the schema covers.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only restating the artifact-saving capability, which the saveArtifact parameter already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a unique resource: the semantic page and registered actionable element IDs from the in-app DebugBridge. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_page/get_ui_hierarchy by emphasizing DebugBridge and actionable element IDs.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_page or get_ui_hierarchy. It implies a debugging context but lacks exclusions or fallback conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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