read_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output form (markdown) and a processing trait (boilerplate stripped), but says nothing about read-only safety profile, whether the tab must already be loaded/awaited, or any size/truncation behavior on long pages.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately. 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?

For a read-only extraction tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (markdown, boilerplate removed) and when to prefer the sibling. Minor gaps remain on long-page/truncation behavior and the empty-parameter default, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 67%; tabId and spaceId are documented in-schema, while the format enum ('markdown'/'text') has no schema description. The description supplies the implicit default output ('as markdown') for format, adding modest value but not fully compensating for the bare enum.

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+resource ('Extract the main readable content of the page as markdown') with a clear scope modifier ('boilerplate stripped'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the snapshot sibling, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both a when-to-use condition ('Use for reading articles/docs') and a named alternative with its selecting condition ('use snapshot when you need to interact'). This is exactly the explicit when/alternative routing guidance the rubric rewards.

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