browser_get_page_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, whether the page must be loaded, or the format of the returned source. This leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 short sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately concise but could be slightly more descriptive to include key details expected by an agent.

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?

Despite having no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It does not indicate the output format (likely HTML string) or any preconditions (e.g., page must be navigated). With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide this context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description adds value by confirming the tool requires no additional input. According to guidelines, 0 params sets a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current page source'), clearly indicating the tool returns the raw HTML of the page. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like browser_get_element_text or browser_get_attribute, which retrieve specific parts of the page.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if the agent needs a specific element's text, browser_get_element_text is more appropriate. The description lacks any usage context or prerequisites.

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