read_as_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool reads as markdown, without mentioning limitations (e.g., dynamic content handling, large page behavior, or side effects). No information is given about permissions, reversibility, or response details beyond the basic output format.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and output. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces the score, but it is still efficient.

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 tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain key aspects like what 'subtree' means, how selectors interact, or what happens with the maxBytes cap. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and infer behavior, which is insufficient for a complex tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 80%, so the parameters are largely documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but since the schema already covers most parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for the remaining 20% undocumented parameters, but it is not misleading.

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 states a clear action ('read') and a specific output ('readable markdown'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_text or get_html. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'subtree' scope or how it relates to a selector, so the purpose is clear but not fully detailed.

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 versus alternatives such as get_text or get_html. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the sibling list alone.

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