view_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (title, meta tags, script sources, visible text, optional raw HTML) but does not mention whether it executes client-side JavaScript, how it handles missing pages or server errors, or that fetching may be a read-only operation. It adds some useful context but lacks caveats about limitations.

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 two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. The first sentence states what it fetches, and the second sentence lists return values including the optional raw HTML. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of purpose and expected return contents. It lists the main categories of data returned, which is enough for an agent to understand the tool's output, though it doesn't specify the exact JSON structure or error behavior. This is slightly above the minimum viable level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (path, port, include_raw_html) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches HTML content and structure from a page on a local dev server, naming specific return items (title, meta tags, script sources, visible text). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_response (API responses) and read_file (file contents), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to inspect the HTML of a page served by a running local dev server. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_api_response or check_port, but the context and the mention of 'dev server' provide clear usage context without exclusions.

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