browser_extract_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is outer HTML but does not explain behavior for multiple selector matches, no matches, or the fact that the default selector 'body' extracts only the body element rather than the entire page DOM, which conflicts with the description's 'entire page DOM' claim.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place but could be slightly more precise about the default selector behavior.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return type (outer HTML). It is incomplete regarding default behavior and edge cases, but the low complexity keeps the gap moderate.

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 has a clear description ('CSS selector to extract HTML for'). The description adds the 'outer' qualifier and the element-or-page scope, but it does not clarify how the default 'body' selector relates to the 'entire page DOM' claim.

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 names a specific action ('Extract outer HTML') and a resource ('a specific element or the entire page DOM'), which distinguishes it from sibling browser_extract_text by output type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, and the phrase 'entire page DOM' is slightly ambiguous given the default selector is 'body'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus browser_extract_text, browser_evaluate, or browser_screenshot. The only implied signal is the word 'HTML', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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