get_html

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the 20,000-character truncation limit. It also names the exact DOM method, which gives transparency about how the HTML is retrieved. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only essential caveat information (truncation). There is no fluff or repetition of what the schema already states.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only tool, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the exact extraction method, and the truncation limit. No output schema exists, but the return type (HTML source as a string) is evident from the description. The context is fully adequate.

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 the schema leaves no ambiguity. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('currently connected tab') but does not need to explain parameters that don't exist. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full HTML source of the currently connected tab'), and even cites the exact DOM expression (`document.documentElement.outerHTML`). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_url or get_title, which focus on different aspects of the page.

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 description gives clear context by specifying it operates on the 'currently connected tab' and implies its purpose as a full-page HTML getter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or point to alternatives such as get_title or get_url, though the sibling list makes those options visible.

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