browser_get_inner_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention return type, behavior when the element is not found, or whether it waits for the element, which are important operational details.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, communicating the core purpose immediately.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is minimally acceptable, but since there is no output schema, it would benefit from specifying that it returns the inner HTML as a string and what happens if the selector matches no element. The lack of these details leaves some ambiguity.

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 already describes the 'selector' parameter as 'CSS selector of the element', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the action itself, so the baseline 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 specifies the exact action ('Get') and the resource ('inner HTML of an element'), making it clear and distinct from sibling tools like browser_get_outer_html. The term 'inner HTML' inherently differentiates from outer HTML even without an explicit comparison.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_text or browser_get_outer_html. It lacks any context about use cases, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the selection entirely to the name.

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