browser_extract_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the output is a structured JSON array, providing useful context about the return format. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., behavior when no table is found, handling of multiple tables, or nested tables), leaving some transparency 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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and output. It contains no redundant words or filler, and the most important information 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on which table is extracted (first table, all tables, table matching a selector) and the exact structure of the JSON array. Notably, there is no output schema, so the description could have provided more detail on the return format.

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?

The input schema already includes a fully descriptive entry for the single 'target' parameter ('Target table reference (snapshot ID) or CSS selector.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Extracts tabular HTML table data into a structured JSON array.' It uses a specific verb ('Extracts'), names the resource ('tabular HTML table data'), and specifies the output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_get_html or browser_snapshot, which provide raw HTML or page snapshots, not structured table extraction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that other browser tools like browser_evaluate or browser_get_html could serve similar purposes, nor does it state specific scenarios where extracting a table is preferred. This lacks explicit usage context.

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