browser_get_outer_html

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (getting HTML) but does not explicitly state that it will not modify the page, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but lacks rich context.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without extra words. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter, though it could arguably be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose.

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 straightforward with one parameter, and the schema covers that parameter. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., the HTML string), nor any guidance relative to sibling tools. The description is minimally complete for a simple getter but lacks explicit detail about return behavior.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter, 'selector', as a CSS selector of the element. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('outer HTML of an element'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like browser_get_inner_html, but the term 'outer HTML' is specific enough to convey the distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_inner_html or browser_get_text. The description provides no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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