camofox_get_page_html

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns HTML, optionally scoped by selector, and requires CAMOFOX_API_KEY. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., invalid selector). The transparency is adequate for a simple read operation but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then usage context, then optional parameter behavior and auth requirement. Every sentence is essential and there is no redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value partially (rendered HTML, outerHTML for selector). However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., selector not found), error behavior, or performance notes. It covers the basics but is not fully complete.

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 descriptions for tabId and selector are clear. The description adds value by explaining that passing a selector returns only the element's outerHTML, providing meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 tool gets rendered HTML from the live DOM, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing 'snapshot refs' and 'accessibility tree', making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance: when snapshot refs are incomplete on SPA/custom-component sites or when final DOM state is needed instead of accessibility tree. It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the context implies alternatives (e.g., snapshot). Score reflects clear guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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