get_page_content

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

The word 'Extract' conveys a non-destructive read operation, and the description names the output formats. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and doesn't disclose behavior such as whether the page/element is modified, how the limit affects output, or what happens when no selector is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple reading tool, though it forgoes any structured param or usage detail.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and ambiguous sibling tools like 'read_page', the description is too terse. It doesn't explain param behavior, usage context, or what distinguishes this tool from similar sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess about important call decisions.

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 maps 'format' to 'text or raw HTML' and 'selector' to 'element', but the 'limit' parameter is left completely unexplained. This is only partial compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and states both the resource ('page or an element') and the two possible output forms ('readable text or raw HTML'). This makes the core function clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named sibling tool 'read_page'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_page', 'get_page_info', or 'inspect_dom'. The description implies a read operation but does not state when to choose it over other page-reading tools.

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