cdp_content

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

The description discloses an important behavior: 'Large documents are truncated.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, leaving gaps.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what exactly is returned and any constraints. It only warns about truncation and omits error cases, the effect of max_chars, and prerequisites like an existing session (though session_id is in the schema). It feels minimal for a 3-parameter tool.

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 low (33%), and the description compensates partially: 'innerHTML of a selector' explains the selector parameter, and 'Large documents are truncated' relates to max_chars. It does not explicitly link max_chars to the truncation limit or explain other parameter semantics.

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') and the resource ('page HTML, or innerHTML of a selector'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like cdp_screenshot or cdp_page_info, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need page HTML or a selector's innerHTML. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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