browser_read

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a safe read operation, and it explains view-dependent output and line-based filtering/pagination. However, it omits whether there are side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or output structure beyond brief view names.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds operational meaning. View defaults, view-specific content, filtering, and pagination are all covered in a single efficient passage.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to be fairly complete. It covers most parameters and view modes, but the missing 'changes' view and lack of return-shape detail leave gaps for an agent relying solely on this text.

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 explains view modes (page, text, links, forms, tables, meta), filter ('keeps matching lines'), and offset/max ('count lines'), which is useful. But it omits the 'changes' enum value and does not clarify filter syntax or how offset/max interact.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read the current page.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like browser_act or browser_open, though no sibling is named explicitly. The description also identifies the main output mode via views.

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?

Usage is implied through view choices ('page (outline with refs, default), text (readable content...), links, forms, tables, meta'), but the description never states when to use browser_read instead of browser_screenshot, browser_act, or browser_guide. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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