Read visible text from the DESKTOP grid browser (by pageId) — one element, or the whole page when no selector is given. This is how you ASSERT on what is actually on screen. Not a device — for a phone or tablet use webpage_get_text (by udid).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | Page ID from web_navigate | |
| selector | No | CSS selector; omit for the whole page body |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety/behavior burden. It discloses that only visible text is read, that omitting selector returns the whole page, and frames it as an assertion/read operation. It doesn't cover edge cases like missing elements, but for a read-only text tool this is solid behavioral context.
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?
Three tight sentences: core function, primary use case, and routing to alternative. No filler, and the most important scoping detail is front-loaded.
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 low-complexity, 2-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does, how to target whole page vs element, when to use it, and which sibling to use instead. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because returning text is self-evident from 'Read visible text.'
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining selector omission yields whole-page text and that pageId refers to the desktop grid browser. It reinforces the schema's 'omit for the whole page body' with the 'one element' contrast.
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 a specific action — 'Read visible text' — and a precise resource: the DESKTOP grid browser identified by pageId. It also clarifies scope (one element vs whole page) and explicitly differentiates from webpage_get_text for phone/tablet, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to ASSERT on what is actually on screen. It also provides an exclusion and alternative by saying 'Not a device — for a phone or tablet use webpage_get_text (by udid).' This is direct routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.
The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).
333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.
The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.
