browser_inspect_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool extracts text content without HTML tags, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like text extraction from dynamic content, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, then provides clear parameter explanations in a labeled 'Args' section, and concludes with return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool's moderate complexity (text extraction from browser), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. The main gap is lack of guidance on limitations or error cases, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return format details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'session: Name of the browser session' and 'selector: Optional CSS selector to get specific element's text'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details like CSS selector syntax examples.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'text content from the page (no HTML tags)', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_inspect_dom (which includes HTML structure) and browser_inspect_screenshot (visual capture). The 'no HTML tags' clarification is particularly helpful for differentiation.

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 implies usage through the selector parameter explanation ('Optional CSS selector to get specific element's text'), suggesting when to use this tool vs. getting all page text. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like browser_inspect_dom or provide clear exclusion criteria for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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