browser_html

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is truncated, which is a useful behavioral trait, and 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation. But it never defines what 'the target tab' means (active tab? last opened?), nor says anything about permissions or the shape of the returned HTML.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, this is close to adequate, but it leaves the tab-targeting semantics and the truncation behavior (silent cut vs. marker) unstated, which matters for an agent deciding whether to raise the limit.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains 'limit' as max characters with a 20000 default. The description only echoes the truncation idea and adds no format or interaction detail (e.g., whether truncation is silent or marked).

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 and resource: 'Read the raw HTML of the target tab', with the truncation caveat. It is clearly distinguishable from browser_text and browser_snapshot by the word 'raw HTML', though it does not name those siblings directly.

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?

'Use when text is not enough' gives a concrete selection condition that implicitly routes the agent away from browser_text. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use it (e.g., for structured element lookup, use browser_snapshot).

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