browser_get_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 hints at pagination via 'paginated' but never explains how pagination works, offsets, default chunk size, or that max_chars truncates output. Read-only nature is implied but not stated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. No waste. But brevity here comes at the cost of needed detail rather than from efficient phrasing of a complete idea.

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?

With four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple reading siblings, the description is far too sparse. An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, but when-to-use, pagination mechanics, and parameter meanings are all missing.

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 for four undocumented parameters. It only weakly implies pagination (offset/max_chars) and says nothing about selector or session_id. The parameter semantics remain largely opaque.

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 verb+resource ('Get text from browser') and adds the qualifiers 'paginated' and 'visible', which give some specificity. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like browser_snapshot or browser_find_text, which also read page content. The scope hint ('visible text') is the only distinguishing signal.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of browser_snapshot, browser_find_text, or browser_screenshot, despite several text/content-reading siblings. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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