ghost_tab_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that only visible text is returned and that omitting the selector causes the whole page to be used. The 'reading content' wording implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly mention edge cases like missing selectors or empty text.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core behavior, the selector fallback, and a usage preference in a compact form.

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 low complexity of the tool and the explicit statement about return content and selector behavior, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit return-format details and edge-case behavior, but the absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by the clear statement that visible text is returned.

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 parameter meaning. It usefully explains the selector parameter and its omission behavior, but it does not explain the 'tab' or 'browser' parameters beyond their names, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 identifies what the tool returns: visible text of an element or the whole page when selector is omitted. It also distinguishes the tool from screenshots for content reading, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling text/describe tools like ghost_tab_describe.

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 phrase 'Prefer over screenshots for reading content' gives clear guidance on when to use this tool instead of an alternative. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer other tab tools, but the context is clear enough for typical text-extraction scenarios.

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