get_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as the effect of null selector (returns whole document), error handling, or any side effects. Essential transparency is lacking.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or parameter defaults, making it slightly incomplete for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking 'innerHTML or outerHTML' to the 'outer' parameter and 'element or whole document' to 'selector.' However, it does not fully detail parameter behavior or return format, leaving gaps.

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 verb 'return' and the specific resources 'innerHTML (or outerHTML) of element or whole document.' It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_text or get_attribute by specifying HTML content.

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 when to use the tool (when HTML content is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, this lack of differentiation is a notable gap.

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