get_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds key behaviors: 'may return preview+token' for large output, 'Scripts removed by default for security/size', and auto-return condition for small HTML. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with warning and purpose. Structure is logical: usage guidelines, return behavior, security note. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers return value behavior (auto-return vs. preview+token). Explains script removal and testid shortcuts. Sufficient for all 3 optional parameters and edge cases.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value with examples (e.g., 'testid:main-content') and clarifies the default behavior of the clean parameter ('default = remove scripts only'). Does not merely restate schema.

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 'Get raw HTML markup from the page (no rendering, just source code).' It specifies the resource (HTML) and action (get) with precise scope, distinguishing it from siblings like inspect_dom and query_selector.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'RARELY NEEDED' and lists three specific use cases. Clearly states when NOT to use it and provides alternative tools (inspect_dom, query_selector, get_computed_styles) for structured tasks.

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