get_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention what happens with non-renderable content, how complex layouts are handled, limits on content size, or whether this reads from the rendered DOM vs raw source. The '→' arrow notation hints at a transformation but reveals no behavioral details.

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 brief, which is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance. It's much closer to under-specification than to efficient information density. The arrow notation is compact but provides minimal actual guidance.

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 tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. The agent cannot know what parameters to pass, what the output looks like, or how this differs from page_text. This tool needs significantly more documentation to be usable.

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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The three parameters (sel, tab, max_chars) are entirely undocumented—the agent has no idea what 'sel' selects, what 'tab' refers to, or how 'max_chars' truncates output. With 0% coverage and no compensating description, this is a significant gap.

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 the tool converts page content to Markdown, giving a specific verb+resource ('get_markdown', '页面内容转 Markdown'). However, it's somewhat tautological—the name and description essentially repeat each other, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like page_text or page_html which also retrieve page content in different formats.

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 vs page_text, page_html, or other content-extraction siblings. The description doesn't explain what makes Markdown output preferable to plain text or HTML in certain scenarios, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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