arc_get_page_html

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not disclose potential size limits, blocking behavior, or authorization needs. Lacks detail but is not misleading. Scores 3 as minimal adequacy.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action. Every character is necessary; no waste.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is contextually adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details that would make it complete for an agent navigating many sibling tools.

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%, with the parameter 'tab_index' described as tab index (default active tab). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'ページのHTML全体を取得する' (Get the entire HTML of the page) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool retrieves full page HTML. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arc_get_page_content (likely text) and arc_get_page_links (links only).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arc_get_page_content or arc_get_page_forms. The description does not mention exclusions or context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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