get-element-html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool returns HTML and supports depth control, but it does not describe the exact return payload or any side effects. For a read-only inspection tool, this is a modest but acceptable gap.

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 conveys the core action, target, scope, and key option. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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 relatively simple read-only tool with three parameters, the description plus fully documented schema provides enough information to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the exact return format, but that omission is minor given the availability of output examples over time and the clear purpose.

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. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the tool returns content for the element and its children, which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions and helps interpret depth and includeOuter behavior.

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 ('Retrieves') with a concrete resource ('HTML content of a specific element and its children') and mentions depth control. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like get-element-properties or get-element-styles.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool should be used when HTML content is needed, as opposed to properties, styles, or dimensions. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives to consider.

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