Get HTML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., no mention of permissions or error handling). It does not contradict annotations, but value added is limited.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient for a simple tool, though it could briefly mention the output format or add structure. Still, it 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core functionality without missing critical details, though it could hint at return format or limitations.

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 selector parameter description goes beyond the schema by explaining that empty means whole page, bare selectors are CSS, and text: prefix enables text matching. This adds substantial semantic value, fully compensating for the schema's baseline 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 clearly states the action (get HTML) and resource (element or whole page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like element_get_text or element_get_attribute, but does not explicitly differentiate from page_screenshot. Thus it is clear but not perfect.

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 such as element_get_text, element_get_attribute, or page_screenshot. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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