browser_extract_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function and output type, but does not disclose how it handles multiple tables, table headers, malformed selectors, or the exact structure of the JSON output. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential operation and output format without any superfluous words. It is highly concise and immediately scannable.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one optional parameter, the description lacks important context: no output schema exists, yet the return format is only vaguely described as 'structured JSON'. There is no mention of what the JSON contains, which table is selected if multiple match, or error behavior. This leaves the description incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 sole parameter 'selector' is fully documented in the schema with a description and default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Extract') on a specific resource ('a table') with a defined output format ('structured JSON'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like browser_extract_meta and browser_extract_images, and the tool name reinforces the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention selection criteria, exclusions, or how it differs from extracting other content types. Context from sibling names implies the use case, but the description itself offers no explicit usage direction.

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