Extract Text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the important qualifier 'visible', indicating that only rendered text is extracted, not hidden or raw HTML. However, it does not address behavior for missing selectors, empty results, or whether the operation is purely read-only, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple extraction tool with an output schema available, the description adequately covers the core functionality and scope. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema handles return format, and the tool's simplicity keeps the description sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the two modes ('page' or 'selector') and implies the selector parameter is for the selector mode. Yet it does not specify selector syntax or the exact relationship between mode and selector, so parameter semantics are only partially clarified.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and identifies the resource as 'visible text', with clear scope of 'page or selector'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_table and extract_form, which target different content types.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to get visible text from either the entire page or a specific selector. This provides clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the intent is unambiguous.

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