get_page_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'visible text content', hinting at behavior (e.g., excludes hidden elements), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Get visible text content', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action and resource scope efficiently.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools like 'get_page_content', the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or how it differs from alternatives, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about the 'selector' or 'tabId' parameters, their purposes, formats, or constraints. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide meaningful semantic context beyond the basic 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 'Get visible text content' clearly states the action (get) and resource (visible text content), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_page_content' or 'execute_script'. It specifies 'visible' text, which adds some differentiation from raw HTML content tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_content' or 'execute_script' for text extraction. The description implies it's for retrieving visible text, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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