cloak_get_text

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

The description discloses key behaviors: uses Chromium, executes JavaScript, returns visible plain text, handles SPA/dynamic content, and includes anti-detection settings. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it lacks details on error handling or session management.

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 concise: a short paragraph for purpose and behavior, followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and 13 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage hints, parameter explanations, and anti-detection settings. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise complete for practical use.

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 description explains 12 of 13 parameters with meaningful context (e.g., selector limits to CSS selector, max_chars truncates). It does not describe timeout_ms, missing from the bullet list. The explanations add value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 tool opens a URL with an invisible Chromium browser and returns visible plain text, suitable for LLM analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (cloak_get_html, cloak_interact, cloak_screenshot) by focusing on plain text extraction with JavaScript execution for dynamic content.

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 description provides specific guidance for bypassing Cloudflare/reCAPTCHA by setting proxy, geoip, humanize, and headless. It implies the tool is for text extraction from dynamic pages but does not explicitly compare with siblings for when to use alternatives. The context is clear and actionable.

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