page_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful behavioral detail: if `tab` is not passed, the tool uses the currently active tab. However, it does not disclose other traits such as read-only nature, network behavior, error handling, or side effects, so it is adequate but not rich.

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, brief sentence that conveys the tool's core function and the key parameter behavior. Every word adds value—there is no redundancy or fluff, making it an excellent example of concise communication.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the primary use case and the parameter's behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning return type or potential side effects, but such details are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 only defines `tab` as an integer with no description. The description compensates by explaining the default behavior when `tab` is omitted (uses the active tab). This adds meaningful context, though it does not explain all possible values or error scenarios. Given the 0% schema coverage, this is a strong contribution.

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 the tool returns the complete HTML of a page, using a specific verb and resource. It includes the behavior of the optional `tab` parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like get_markdown or page_text, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, not explicitly stated.

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