playwright_get_html_content

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 but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no mention of error handling (e.g., what happens if the selector doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or return format details. The description doesn't add meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence ('Get the HTML content of the page'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 (interacting with web pages via Playwright) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw HTML string, structured data), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'playwright_navigate'. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more operational context to be truly helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a 'CSS selector for the element'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('HTML content of the page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_text_content' by specifying HTML content rather than text. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this operates on a web page context, which is implied but could be more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'playwright_get_text_content' for text extraction or 'playwright_evaluate' for more complex DOM interactions. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring a page to be loaded first) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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