get_page_info

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description goes further by explaining the operational consequence of visibility=hidden (no rendering, screenshots fail, timers slow) and decoding dev.server/dev.overlay fields. This is behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema or 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the field inventory comes first, then semantics, then sibling routing. The long field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though the sentence is heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields and explaining ambiguous states (hidden visibility, dev overlays). Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and both parameters (tab_id, frame_id) already document their defaults and cross-references (get_frames). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (page metadata) and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, url, visibility, doctype, charset, meta tags, scripts, stylesheets, links, forms), which is far more precise than the tool name alone. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from read_page, query_dom, and get_status.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to siblings: 'For the text use read_page, for specific elements query_dom, for the bridge itself get_status.' It also gives a conditional instruction for dev.overlay ('read it before treating the page as valid').

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