scraping_browser_get_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful trait not in the annotations: the output can be very large, and script/head content is the expensive part. It does not describe truncation, formatting, or what a non-full_page response looks like.

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?

It is short, but the sentence is convoluted: the tool is simultaneously discouraged and recommended with full_page, and the clause order buries the actual caveat at the end. Front-loading 'returns full page HTML, can be large' would carry the same content more cleanly.

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?

With one optional parameter, no required params, and no output schema, the definition needs to cover size behavior and alternatives. It covers size, but leaves the agent without a clear path to the cheaper text-only sibling tools, which is the decisive missing piece for this tool family.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single full_page parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the size caveat but adds no syntax or default-value information beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the HTML content of the current page.' An agent can tell it retrieves raw HTML from the active browser session rather than a fresh scrape. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling scraping_browser_get_text or scrape_as_html, which is the main ambiguity.

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?

'Avoid using this tool and if used, use full_page option unless it is important to see things like script tags' gives a conditional, but it is self-contradictory in construction and never names the alternative an agent should reach for (scraping_browser_get_text, scrape_as_markdown). Usage direction is implied rather than routed.

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