content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the page state. It only describes the actions' purposes, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise, using two main sentences: an overall purpose statement with sibling differentiation, and a colon-separated list of actions with short clarifications. Every part adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and 3 actions with no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, or parameter requirements per action. For example, it doesn't mention that 'connectionReason' is always required or what each action outputs. This leaves agents without critical context for correct invocation.

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 100%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds value by grouping parameters under actions (e.g., mode/save for extractText, limit/types/showHidden for findInteractive, checks for verify), giving context beyond the schema's individual descriptions. This organization helps agents select appropriate parameters for each action.

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 identifies the tool as the primary tool for page content, distinguishes it from screenshots with 'Prefer over screenshots', and enumerates three distinct actions (extractText, findInteractive, verify) with concise explanations of each. This provides a specific verb-resource mapping and helps differentiate from sibling tools like 'screenshot'.

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 gives a general preference over screenshots but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other content-related siblings like 'dom' or 'inspect'. It also lacks guidance on when not to use each action or prerequisites. The brief action descriptions imply use cases but are not exhaustive.

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