get_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning important traits such as read-only nature, potential size of output, or performance impact. This lack of detail reduces transparency for agent decision-making.

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 very concise (4 words), which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it could be more structured by adding brief context, so it loses one point for being slightly too sparse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'html' means (full document, inner body?), format, or potential edge cases. Compared to sibling tools with more detailed descriptions, this lacks completeness.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-specific information but also does not need to since there are none.

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 current page html') and the resource ('html' of current page). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_title' and 'get_url' which retrieve different data.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'screenshot' or 'get_title'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit help.

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