get_html

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact 20000-character truncation behavior, the truncation marker format, and how 'short result' ambiguity is resolved. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs to interpret output correctly.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second covers the only significant edge case (truncation) and its marker. No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the complete contract: source retrieval method, size limit, truncation indicator, and ambiguity resolution. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the already-vacuous schema coverage. The description instead spends its text on return behavior, which is appropriate for a no-input tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full HTML source of the currently connected tab'. It also specifies the exact implementation via `document.documentElement.outerHTML`, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_title, get_url, and get_computed_style.

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 intended use case is clear from the stated resource and output: call this when the full page HTML is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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