get_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the extraction action but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the tab is closed. For a tool that interacts with browser tabs, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (extracting content from a tab) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details and usage context. It's complete enough for a simple read operation but could be improved with more context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (tabId and type with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: '페이지의 HTML 또는 텍스트 콘텐츠를 추출합니다' (extracts HTML or text content from a page). It specifies the verb (extract) and resource (page content), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'screenshot' or 'evaluate' which might also retrieve page information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open tab), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'evaluate' (which might execute scripts) or 'screenshot' (which captures visual content). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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