camofox_get_page_html

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions auth requirement ('Requires CAMOFOX_API_KEY'), but does not disclose potential side effects or performance implications. Since it's a read operation, risk is low, but more transparency would be better.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage context, and optional parameter + auth. No redundant phrases, well-organized.

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?

Given 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and param behavior adequately. Auth requirement noted. Could mention default return (full page) but implied. Sufficient for agents.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters with clear descriptions (tabId as ID, selector for scoping). Description adds marginal value by specifying 'outerHTML' for selector output, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Get rendered HTML from the live DOM' and resource. Distinguishes from snapshot tools by mentioning DOM vs. accessibility tree, and offers optional selector for scoping. No ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'when snapshot refs are incomplete on SPA/custom-component sites or when you need the final DOM state'. Implies when not to use, but does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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