browser_wp_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the internal flow (navigates to the Elementor editor, waits for load, reads innerHTML from the preview iframe), the return shape (clean HTML/CSS/JS), and the WP-admin auth requirement. It omits remaining behavioral details like tab/navigation side effects and failure behavior when not logged in, so not a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the flow, return value, and precondition, so an agent can triage quickly. The 'Args' block partly restates the schema, and the process sentence is slightly verbose, but nothing is wasted enough to drop below a 4.

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 two-parameter browser automation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the runtime precondition, the target iframe, and the returned content. Missing are edge-case/failure behavior and tab-state effects, so 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by giving concrete format examples: a fully qualified site_url ('https://thankyouexperiences.com') and a page_id example tied to meaning ('5719 for Team page'). The remaining semantics of the two parameters are largely self-evident, so an example-driven assist merits a 4 rather than a 3 baseline.

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 (extract) and resource (HTML widget content from a WordPress Elementor page), and goes further to name the exact source (Elementor preview iframe). An agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like browser_html or browser_page_text without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('The browser must already be logged into WP admin for this to work'), which tells the agent the required context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as browser_html or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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