get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Placeholder implementation' suggests incomplete functionality but does not specify what actually happens (e.g., returns null, throws error, partial result). The behavior is opaque.

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 at 5 words, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not efficiently informative; it earns its place only to state the resource and placeholder nature. A 3 is appropriate for minimalism without substance.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error states, and side effects. The 'placeholder' note partially addresses completeness but leaves major gaps for a tool with one parameter and no other structured documentation.

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 sole parameter 'depth' has a default of 1 and no description in the schema (schema coverage 0%). The description adds no explanation of what depth means or how it affects the result. This leaves the agent without critical information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 states it gets a DOM document, which is specific. However, 'placeholder implementation' implies it may not be fully functional, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_computed_styles' but lacks clarity on its current state.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_computed_styles' or 'get_console_logs'. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.

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