browser_get_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does convey the key behavioral trait: it extracts the full outerHTML rather than a summary or serialized tree, and it can write to a file instead of returning content. It omits side-effect profile, return type, and any handling of very large documents, so the behavioral picture is incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the primary behavior front-loaded before the optional save mode. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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 simple, no-required-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no annotations an agent still lacks confirmation of return type (string vs file path), behavior on large pages, and when this beats browser_snapshot.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Optional file path to save HTML'. The description's 'or save to file' phrase reinforces that mode but adds no syntax, path format, or overwrite semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('full outerHTML of the entire document'), which clearly distinguishes it from a rendered screenshot or accessibility snapshot. It does not name which sibling to prefer over it (e.g. browser_snapshot or browser_eval), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 mentions the two output modes (return HTML or save to file) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus browser_snapshot, browser_eval, or browser_find_in_page. No prerequisite or context conditions are stated, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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