browser_get_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, but does not mention what happens for missing elements, whether multiple matches are handled, what the return format is, or whether it waits for the element. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 short and front-loaded, consisting of a single clear phrase that directly states the purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately brief for a simple getter tool.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is not complete enough. It fails to cover usage trade-offs, edge-case behavior, or selector expectations, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable invocation in nuanced contexts.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does nothing of the sort. The only parameter 'selector' is left undescribed; the agent must infer its format (CSS, XPath, etc.) solely from the name, which is insufficient.

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 '获取元素文本' clearly states a specific action (get) and resource (element text), which distinguishes it from sibling getters like browser_get_html, browser_get_attribute, and browser_get_input_value. The verb+resource structure makes the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_get_by_text, browser_get_attribute, or browser_get_input_value. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints to help an agent choose correctly.

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