get_dom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation and 'as HTML' indicates the return format, but it does not mention any side effects, performance implications, or that the DOM is a snapshot. It is minimal but not misleading, earning a mid-range score.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and any behavioral caveats relative to sibling tools, making it not fully complete for an agent to make informed 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (selector and outer_html), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The schema already explains the defaults and behavior, giving the agent sufficient information. Baseline 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 'Read the page's DOM as HTML' clearly states the verb (read), resource (page's DOM), and output format (HTML). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_url (reads URL) and get_console_log (reads console logs), so it unambiguously describes its function.

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 implies usage for reading the DOM but does not mention exclusions or compare with execute_javascript, which can also access the DOM. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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