get_element_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, without mentioning what happens when the selector matches multiple elements, finds nothing, or whether the tool waits for the element to exist. 'Get' implies read-only, but no other behavioral traits are revealed.

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 direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description omits essential details such as selector format, matching behavior, and error handling. With no annotations, these gaps could lead an agent to invoke the tool incorrectly or misinterpret results.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'selector' parameter or specify its format (e.g., CSS selector vs XPath). The schema provides only the parameter name and type, which is insufficient to fully understand selector syntax expectations, though the name 'selector' is somewhat self-explanatory.

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 identifies the operation ('Get') and the resource ('outer HTML of a specific element'). It is specific enough to be distinguished from page-level tools like get_html_source and attribute-level tools like get_element_attribute, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: use this when you need an element's outer HTML. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_html_source or get_element_attribute, and no exclusions are stated.

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