get_page_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is retrieved (URL, title, meta-tags) but doesn't describe how it works (e.g., requires an active browser tab, might fail if no page is loaded, returns structured data). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core function and specifies the types of information retrieved, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'connect_to_browser'), error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to be complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'tabIndex' documented as 'Индекс вкладки' (tab index). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what happens if no tabIndex is provided or how tabs are indexed. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Получить информацию о странице (URL, заголовок, мета-теги)' translates to 'Get information about a page (URL, title, meta-tags)'. This specifies the verb ('get information') and resource ('page'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like 'get_html' or 'get_text'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a browser connection), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_html' (which might retrieve raw HTML) or 'get_text' (which might extract visible text).

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