cloak_get_html

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as mutability, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It only mentions anti-detection parameters by reference, leaving the agent to infer behavior from context.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, referencing another tool for boilerplate parameters to avoid duplication. No unnecessary 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values beyond 'HTML source code' or 'outerHTML'. The 11 parameters not described here are left to cross-reference, making this tool's description insufficient for an agent to use all features correctly without external knowledge.

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?

Description explains the effect of 'url' and 'selector' parameters (return full page vs. outerHTML). However, with 0% schema coverage and 13 parameters, only the first two are described; the remaining 11 are merely cross-referenced to another tool, which adds incompleteness.

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?

Description clearly states it opens a URL and returns rendered HTML source code, with option to select a specific element via CSS selector. This distinguishes it from siblings (cloak_get_text for text, cloak_interact for interaction, cloak_screenshot for screenshots).

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?

Description implies use for structured parsing and link extraction, and mentions that anti-detection parameters are same as cloak_get_text, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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