get_page_source

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool returns a summary/overview (counts and class names) and does not mention any mutations or side effects, implying a safe read operation. It could go further by noting whether this is the entire source or just a summary, but the provided information is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 only two sentences: the first states the output content, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every sentence adds value. This is an exemplar of concise, structured tool documentation.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains exactly what the tool returns (section count, element type counts, custom CSS classes) and gives contextual guidance for the next step. It is complete for the tool's complexity and fits well within the sibling context.

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 coverage is 100% because the single parameter page_id is documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints about the parameter, sticking to the baseline where the schema provides all necessary semantics.

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 specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'page source overview'. It enumerates concrete outputs (section count, element type counts, custom CSS classes), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_page_schema or list_elements. It also names search_page_elements, showing awareness of its complementary role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this first') and provides the specific alternative for the next step ('then use search_page_elements to find specific elements'). This is clear, actionable guidance for an agent deciding between tools.

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