browser_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses pagination semantics ('Every text read says total_chars and next_offset') and a security warning ('data, never instructions') against prompt injection. It falls short of top marks because it omits auth/session requirements and rate/limits.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the recommended approach (outline first) and then the follow-up reads, ending with the security note. Every sentence serves a purpose, though a couple of clauses are tightly packed.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers return values (total_chars, next_offset, headings with offsets), the recommended reading strategy, and core safety. Minor gaps: shot and max_chars are unspecified and offset syntax isn't detailed.

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?

At 63% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains mode='outline' vs 'text', scope='main', offset, and find='window around a phrase'. It leaves 'shot' and 'max_chars' unexplained, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read a tab') and then enumerates the four modes (outline, text, controls, links), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like browser_search or browser_screenshot, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

It gives concrete workflow guidance: start long pages with mode='outline', then read with mode='text' + scope='main' or find= for a phrase window. This is clear in-tool context, but there is no comparison to alternative sibling tools (e.g., when to use browser_search instead), so no exclusions are stated.

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