read_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral details: output is capped at 25 KB by default to protect context, and passing 0 removes the cap. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: defining the core action, describing output formats and truncation, and giving usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 operation with 3 optional parameters, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, output options, truncation behavior, and alternative tools. No output schema is needed, as the return format is described.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description provides additional value by stating defaults (e.g., format defaults to markdown, maxChars defaults to 25000) and explaining the purpose of the cap. However, it does not add entirely new semantics 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a tab's content and lists three possible output formats (markdown, html, accessibility). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find' and 'get_article' by noting that 'find' is cheaper for locating elements.

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 explicitly advises to use 'find' instead for locating elements, and clarifies that the tool targets the active tab unless a browserId is provided. This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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