Browser Read

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and does disclose the main behavior: it reads the page and returns title, URL, and visible text, optionally listing interactive elements with refs. It lacks details on side effects, permissions, or truncation behavior, but for a read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, then uses a semicolon to add the optional structure mode and its purpose, making it easy to parse.

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?

The basic invocation is clear and the presence of an output schema covers return formatting, but the description is thin for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. It omits guidance on `selector`, `max_chars`, and session/device selection, and it does not direct the agent to related tools, leaving gaps for non-default use.

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 for the five undocumented parameters. It only clarifies `structure`; it leaves `device`, `session`, `selector`, and `max_chars` without added meaning, so an agent cannot infer how they affect the read.

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 the page') and enumerates the exact output: title, URL, and visible text. It also distinguishes its interactive-element listing mode from the acting tool by mentioning refs 'for browser_act', making its role in the browser suite clear.

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 implies that `structure=true` should be used when the agent needs interactive-element refs to pass to `browser_act`, providing some context for when to enable that option. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar alternatives like `read_screen`, `browser_extract`, or `browser_find`.

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