get_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('clean markdown') and exclusions ('no LLM, no screenshot'), but omits details like whether it waits for page load, whether it captures the full page or visible portion, or if it requires an active session. Some transparency is present but not fully disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy, making it an ideal concise tool description.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states what it returns and the parameter, which is enough for basic invocation. It could mention when to use it relative to siblings, but the low complexity keeps the requirement modest.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely restates the schema's 'session_id' with a default, adding nothing beyond 'Session to read' which is nearly identical to the schema title. No additional meaning, constraints, or examples are provided.

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 ('Return') and resource ('current page as clean markdown'), clearly distinguishing it from screenshot (not an image) and extract (no LLM processing). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from snapshot, which might also retrieve page content. Overall, purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'no LLM, no screenshot' gives some context on what this tool is not for, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like browse, snapshot, or extract. Usage is implied rather than spelled out, with no exclusionary guidance.

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