get_screen_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently reveals that the tool returns actual HTML code, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and distinguishes the return type. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 well-documented parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It also benefits from sibling context (get_screen_image) that clarifies the niche. Minor gaps remain, such as not explaining potential response size or HTML source, but overall it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, as both parameters have descriptive names and meanings ('Project ID', 'Screen ID'). The description adds no further parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get the full HTML content of a screen.' It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Returns the actual HTML code, not just a URL,' which differentiates it from get_screen_image.

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 implies use when needing HTML code rather than a URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_screen_image or build_site. The 'not just a URL' phrasing offers implicit guidance but no explicit exclusions.

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