Find in view-source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains that the page is fetched like a browser, that raw HTML is used, and that matches are returned as line numbers and text. It leaves out authentication, error, or rate-limit behavior, but covers the core read behavior clearly.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key behavior and sibling contrast are both conveyed efficiently.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context about the return shape and the browser-like fetch method. It does not explain output formatting or failure modes, but it covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the input schema already documents url, lines, match, and hide_params. The description aligns with the match/line-number behavior but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch a page's raw HTML, then return line numbers and text of matches. The phrase 'without taking a screenshot' distinguishes it from the sibling view_source_screenshot tool.

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 mention of not taking a screenshot implies this is the source-inspection alternative to view_source_screenshot, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool versus the screenshot tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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