get-full-dom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (gets the full DOM) and its deprecated status, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context such as performance characteristics, potential limitations, or what 'full DOM' specifically entails. The description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial deprecation guidance. There is zero waste or redundancy, and the most important information (the deprecation warning) is appropriately placed.

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 that this is a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate context by stating what it does and its deprecated status. However, it doesn't explain what 'full DOM' means or what format the output might be in, which could be helpful for an agent. The deprecation warning is the most critical contextual element and is well-covered.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to do so. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('full DOM of the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning a deprecated status and alternative tool ('get-context'), which helps differentiate it from other snapshot-related tools like get-full-snapshot or get-text-snapshot.

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 explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool ('Deprecated, use get-context instead'), which is crucial for agent decision-making. This directly addresses the alternative tool and effectively communicates that this tool should be avoided in favor of the recommended alternative.

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