get_html

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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: whether it waits for elements to load, handles errors if selectors don't match, returns raw HTML strings, or requires specific page states. For a tool interacting with a browser, 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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of browser interaction tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., HTML string, structured data), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'connect_to_browser'. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 clear parameter documentation in Russian. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'selector' and 'outerHTML' or when 'tabIndex' is needed. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 verb ('Получить' - Get) and resource ('HTML содержимое страницы или элемента' - HTML content of a page or element), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_text' or 'get_attributes', which might retrieve different aspects of page 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_text' (for text content) or 'get_attributes' (for element attributes). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a browser connection via 'connect_to_browser', or when HTML retrieval is preferred over other content extraction methods.

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