browser_read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output format and return value: 'Returns page state with content field.' However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if selector is not found), potential side effects (none likely), or any prerequisites like an active browser session. This is an acceptable but minimal level of transparency for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then concisely explains the two parameters and return type. It is only three sentences, with no redundant information, making it highly efficient and 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 tool is simple with only two optional parameters and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. The description covers the main use case and parameter semantics. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error handling or prerequisites (e.g., a page must be loaded), but given the output schema and simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% parameter coverage. It explains 'format' with values 'text' (default) and 'html', and 'selector' as an optional CSS selector. This directly maps to the two schema properties and gives the agent actionable information about valid inputs, despite the schema not defining enums or detailed types.

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's function: 'Read the content of the current page or a specific element.' It identifies the resource (current page) and the action (read), which distinguishes it from sibling browser tools that navigate, click, or interact. The mention of 'current page' indicates browser context, separating it from URL-based scraping tools like scrape_url.

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 context for use: it is for reading content from the current page or a specific element, with options for format and selector. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus other browser tools like browser_get_elements (which may return structured element data) or screenshot.

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