browser_inspect_dom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it retrieves HTML content, supports optional element selection via CSS selector, and truncates output if over 100KB. This covers the core functionality and a critical limitation (truncation), though it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications, or session state requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, its parameters, and a key behavioral trait (truncation). The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description needn't elaborate further. However, it could improve by mentioning session prerequisites or error cases.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'session' is described as 'Name of the browser session,' and 'selector' as 'Optional CSS selector to get specific element's HTML.' This clarifies the purpose of both parameters beyond their schema types (string and optional string/null). However, it doesn't provide examples or format details for the selector.

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 purpose: 'Get DOM HTML content from the page.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('DOM HTML content') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_inspect_text or browser_inspect_events, which also inspect page content but for different aspects.

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 through the mention of 'Optional CSS selector to get specific element's HTML,' suggesting it can be used for both whole-page and element-specific HTML retrieval. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_inspect_text (for text content) or browser_inspect_screenshot (for visual content), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active browser session.

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