browser_get_dom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that four distinct pieces of data are returned. However, it omits whether the HTML snippet is truncated, how large the text extraction can be, and any permission/context requirements — all relevant for a no-annotation read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb and the returned payload with zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 no-annotation read tool with no output schema, telling the agent the four return fields is the minimum viable content. It nonetheless leaves open the size/truncation behavior of the HTML snippet and how it differs from browser_evaluate, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining that the tab defaults to the active tab when no tabId is given — something the schema's terse "Optional tab ID" does not convey.

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 verb ("Extracts") and enumerates the resources returned (page title, URL, visible text content, HTML snippet), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling browser_evaluate, which can also retrieve DOM content, leaving a meaningful ambiguity unresolved.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives even though browser_evaluate overlaps heavily with this tool. The phrase "specified or active tab" describes the parameter, not the usage context.

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