camofox_get_page_html

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the optional selector behavior (returns outerHTML), the auth requirement (CAMOFOX_API_KEY only when auth enabled), and clarifies it operates on the live DOM. It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'Get' implies no mutation. Lacks details on error handling or size limits, but sufficient for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded with main purpose, each sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter behavior, and auth requirement. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke. Minor omission of error/edge-case behavior but not critical.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds behavioral semantics by explaining that selector returns that element's outerHTML instead of full page, and ties tabId to create_tab already in schema. This exceeds baseline.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get rendered HTML from the live DOM' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from snapshot and accessibility tree by targeting SPA/custom-component sites and final DOM state, differentiating it from siblings like snapshot and camofox_query_selector.

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 use cases: when snapshot refs are incomplete on SPA/custom-component sites or when final DOM state is needed. Clearly implies snapshot/accessibility tree as alternatives, though it does not name them directly.

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