browser_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey a key behavioral trait — only *visible* text is returned, excluding hidden DOM/scripts — and hints at cost. But it never clarifies what 'the target tab' means (active tab? last selected?) and says nothing about truncation behavior or return type.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the selection rationale. No waste, though the unsupported superlative 'cheapest' is more marketing than specification.

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 a simple one-param read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should state what comes back (a plain-text string, truncated at `limit`) and how the target tab is resolved. Those are real gaps for calling it correctly.

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% and the single `limit` parameter is documented as 'Max characters, default 6000.' The description adds nothing about it, but with full schema coverage the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the visible text of the target tab.' The qualifier 'visible text' distinguishes it somewhat from sibling tools like browser_html (markup) and browser_screenshot (pixels). However, it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Cheapest way to understand a page' gives an implicit preference signal for page comprehension, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules and no named alternatives (e.g., use browser_html for structure, browser_snapshot for accessibility tree). The agent is left to infer selection logic.

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