get_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET method and no JS execution, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, authentication, or response format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief with the core action first, then usage context and parameter details. It is efficient but the usage sentence could be more precise; still, it wastes no words.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic invocation. However, it omits potential aspects like response format (likely HTML string), error handling for unreachable pages, and any rate limiting, which could affect safe use.

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 'url' has no schema description, but the description provides clear guidance: 'Full URL including scheme' with an example. This meaningfully adds to the schema, compensating for the 0% coverage.

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 fetches raw HTML from a live web page via HTTP GET with no JS execution, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_screenshot.

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 it is useful for analyzing page structure/markup, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_screenshot for visual rendering.

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