get_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that this method is 'more reliable than screenshots', which is a behavioral comparison, but it does not disclose limitations such as whether it waits for page load or what happens when a selector is not found. This leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the recommendation and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant details.

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 tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and usage context adequately. However, it could briefly mention what the return format looks like (e.g., raw HTML or plain text) to be more complete, so a slight gap exists.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (type with enum/default, selector with description), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra context about how these parameters affect the output, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves page content (HTML or text), using a clear verb ('get') and resource ('page content'). It also distinguishes itself from screenshots, which are a common alternative for capturing page state, thereby clarifying its unique value.

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 marks itself as 'Recommended' and specifies that it is intended for 'content analysis and navigation tasks', giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention sibling tools like save_content_as_markdown or find_selector as alternatives, so exclusions are not fully addressed.

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