get_page_source

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 does disclose the return type ('full HTML source') and scope ('current page'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't address common behaviors like whether this reflects the DOM after JavaScript execution, if it's a snapshot, or performance implications. The description is honest but minimal, missing opportunities to disclose that HTML can be large or that it might include sensitive information.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and the resource ('full HTML source'), ending with the scope ('current page'). Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized and clearly written.

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?

For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema defined, the description provides the core value: the HTML source of the current page. The biggest gap is that it doesn't clarify whether the HTML is the live, post-JavaScript DOM or the raw source, which can be a critical difference. Also, it doesn't mention if this might be resource-heavy or have size limits. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but leaves an agent wondering about the timing of the snapshot.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), there's no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since there are none. However, it could have clarified if this is a simple getter or if it interacts with the page in any way. The score is based on the fact that the description is sufficient for what it does, but a 4 is warranted because an ideal description might clarify that no arguments are needed for any interactive capabilities.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('full HTML source of the current page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like get_current_url or get_text by explicitly stating 'full HTML source,' which is a strong differentiator. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'current page' means in relation to iframes or popups, which are common contexts in browser automation.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the phrase 'current page' implies a session context that an agent would need to have set up. It doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the siblings list (navigate, get_current_url, get_text) gives some implicit context. The description is adequate but doesn't clearly help an agent decide between this and get_text when HTML vs text is a factor.

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