get_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which indicate safe read and external access. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it performs actual verification of public content, does not fall back to stale registry hashes, and clarifies that path queries and writes do not degrade. These specifics give the agent confidence in how the tool behaves, though it doesn't cover all edge cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core query action and return values, then adds fallback and behavioral guarantees. It is concise without redundancy, though the phrase '路径查询及写入不降级' is somewhat opaque and could be clearer, slightly affecting structure.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey return information; it mentions returning cloud hash, size, link, and registryDiagnostic in fallback scenarios. It also covers the main usage modes. However, it does not specify the full structure of the response or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent expecting a complete contract.

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%, so each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description adds the mutual exclusivity rule (three identifiers, choose one) and the fallback logic for localPath when no registration exists, which goes beyond the schema. It also clarifies that siteUrl must be a validated HTTPS URL and localPath must be a registered absolute path, reinforcing schema details with additional context.

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 queries a page by one of three identifiers (siteId, siteUrl, or localPath) and returns the cloud's current hash, size, and link, plus verification of public content. The verb 'query' and resource 'page' are specific, and the return values are listed. While it doesn't name siblings explicitly, the purpose is distinct from list/publish/offline/online tools, making it easy for an agent to understand its core function.

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 provides context about fallback behavior when local metadata is unavailable, implying it can still be used with known IDs or verified URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_html or hosting_status, nor does it provide exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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