browser_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: the accessibility tree is bounded, and the vision-step cost only applies when the image is requested. It doesn't cover permissions, pagination, or truncation limits of the bounded tree, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the routing rationale. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values and it does, listing title, URL, text, and the accessibility tree. 'Bounded' is left undefined, so an agent doesn't know the truncation limits, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a zero-required-param read tool.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'unless you ask for the image' only loosely echoes include_screenshot without adding format or default detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (current page) and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, URL, readable text, and a bounded accessibility tree. It also distinguishes itself from the screenshot path, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling browser_* tools.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over a screenshot and explains why (structure not pixels, no vision cost unless requested), which routes the agent correctly. It gives no guidance on when NOT to use it or how it relates to siblings like browser_status, so it falls short of a full 5.

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