safari_get_page_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly notes that the content is 'visible' and uses 'innerText', implying hidden text is excluded. However, it omits details like compatibility with iframes, handling of page load states, or whether whitespace is preserved.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the core functionality without excess. While very concise, it could be marginally improved by adding structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but remains effective.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior but lacks specifics on return format (e.g., plain text, trailing whitespace) and edge cases (e.g., empty page, unloaded page). It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Both parameters (tabId, profile) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter context, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Return'), the resource ('visible text content of the current page'), and specifies the implementation ('innerText'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like safari_read_page (which likely returns HTML) and safari_find (which finds elements).

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as safari_read_page or safari_find. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.