browser_ocr

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the screenshot and OCR process, and notes the dependency on Chromium. However, it does not specify return format, performance considerations, or error conditions. This is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 two sentences, highly concise. The first sentence states the action and method, the second states a prerequisite. No wasted words; each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (screenshot + OCR) and absence of output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It says 'extract all visible text' but not how that text is provided (e.g., as a string, file, or list). It also lacks error cases or performance notes. This is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'fullPage', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('Capture the full scrollable page instead of just the viewport. Default: false.').

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 takes a screenshot and extracts text using OCR. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ocr_image', which likely operates on an existing image. The verb 'take' and resource 'browser page' are specific, but sibling distinction is implicit.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Chromium with debugging port) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ocr_image'. Usage context is implied (when needing text from a browser page) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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