get_page_info

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the outputs (URL, title, visible text snippet) and implicitly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation. While it does not explicitly mention side effects or prerequisites, the purpose-oriented language ('confirm where the browser is') adds useful behavioral context beyond a bare description.

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 concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned and when to use it. It could mention that an active browser session is required, but the phrase 'current page' implies this. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 'Return' with concrete resources (URL, title, visible text snippet), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes from siblings like navigate (changes location) and read_page (likely extracts more detailed content) by framing it as an orientation helper to confirm the browser's current state.

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 clear usage context: 'Useful for orientation — call this to confirm where the browser is.' It explains when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions' (score 4).

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