browser_getHTML

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('get') with no side effects mentioned, which is consistent with a getter. However, it does not specify behavior for invalid selectors or empty results, leaving minor ambiguities.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's function without superfluous details. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 retrieval tool, the description adequately covers its core behavior. It lacks explicit error scenarios or return format, but these are not critical for a basic getter and the description leaves no major gaps in understanding.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters. The descriptions add meaningful context: 'outer' clarifies inclusion of the element's own tag and its default, while 'selector' explains that an empty value retrieves the whole page. This goes beyond basic type information.

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 that the tool retrieves HTML source of the current page or a specified element, making its purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_getTitle or browser_screenshot, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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 implies usage for obtaining HTML but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as browser_extract or browser_evaluate. There is no direct guidance on when to prefer this tool over others, though the purpose is self-evident.

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