get_content

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful context: content can be returned in multiple formats, text/attributes/bounding boxes can be extracted, and results can be saved to a file. However, it does not disclose what is returned when saveAs is used, the effect of waitForJS, or whether rawHttp bypasses the browser rendering, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose and format options, and avoids filler. Every sentence adds useful information about what the tool does or supports.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the core operation and parameter-backed capabilities, but it does not describe the return contract, especially the behavior when saveAs is used, nor does it clarify how this tool relates to extract_data and see_page.

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 high at 82%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning by mentioning bounding box coordinates and file saving, which map to format=elements and saveAs, but it does not meaningfully clarify undocumented params like timeout or format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'page content', then names the available formats (html, text, markdown, rawHttp, elements) and types of extraction (text, attributes, bounding box coordinates). It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like extract_data or see_page, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 about when to prefer get_content over nearby sibling tools such as extract_data, see_page, or navigate. The description implies format-based use cases, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative-selection cues.

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