zen_wp_html

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

No annotations provided, so the description must shoulder the burden. It discloses that the tool navigates to the Elementor editor and extracts innerHTML, implying a read operation. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., does it leave the editor open?), or whether it modifies state, leaving some 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 concise, with a main sentence, step-by-step logic, and a separate Args list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but adds necessary explanation. No unnecessary sentences.

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's complexity (browser automation, Elementor integration), the description covers prerequisites and steps but omits error handling (e.g., page not found), return format beyond 'clean HTML/CSS/JS', and potential failure modes. An output schema is absent, placing more burden on the description, which falls short.

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 0%, but the tool's description includes an Args section with clear explanations and examples (e.g., site_url: 'https://thankyouexperiences.com', page_id: 5719). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on constraints like URL format.

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 'Extract HTML widget content from a WordPress Elementor page,' specifying a unique verb-resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like zen_html (general HTML) and zen_dom by focusing on Elementor HTML widgets.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('browser must already be logged into WP admin') and outlines the steps (navigate, wait, extract). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage context implied.

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