feedbug_get_html_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (CSS selector path, framework component path, clicked element details, ancestors, siblings) and implies a read-only operation by only listing returns. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but given the tool's nature (a getter), this is sufficient.

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 consists of two sentences: the first clearly states the action and data returned, the second provides a usage directive. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the most important information. No extraneous text.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists the categories of returned data (CSS selector path, framework component path, clicked element details, ancestors, siblings). However, it does not describe the structure (e.g., whether these are separate fields or a combined object), nor does it address error cases (e.g., invalid bug ID). Still, for a single-parameter tool, the coverage is good.

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% with a single parameter described as 'Feedback UUID or Linear identifier (e.g. PRE-13)'. The description adds no additional semantics or usage guidance for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HTML/DOM context captured when the bug was reported'), immediately distinguishing this tool from siblings like feedbug_get_bug (which returns general bug details) or feedbug_get_replay. The list of returned data (CSS selector path, framework component path, clicked element details, ancestor/sibling elements) further clarifies the exact scope of output.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to trace a bug back to source code,' providing a clear use case. While it does not mention when *not* to use this tool or directly compare to alternatives, the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over siblings (e.g., when HTML/DOM context is needed rather than diagnostics or replay).

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