get_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two output modes (text for web, layout XML for mobile), which is helpful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether any session-side effects occur, or what happens if no page is loaded. Lacking those details, transparency is only partial.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the platform-dependent outcome with no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, so the description needn't detail return values. It covers the core behavior well for both web and mobile contexts. A minor gap is lack of a note on expected preconditions (e.g., a session must exist), but this is not critical for a getter.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description needs no additional detail here.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('text content (web) or layout XML (mobile) of the current page/screen'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like navigate, click_element, and take_screenshot, none of which retrieve content in this way.

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 implies the tool reads the current page/screen but gives no explicit when-to-use context or exclusions relative to siblings such as evaluate_js, which could also extract DOM content. Usage guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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