get_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only describes the core operation. It does not explain whether hidden text is excluded, what happens when no element matches, whether it waits for content, or what the return value looks like.

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 filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. An agent still needs to infer the return format, selector semantics, and behavior on missing elements. The simple interface reduces the burden slightly, but important operational details remain absent.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'selector' parameter, and the description only vaguely connects it to 'element'. It does not explain that the selector is likely a CSS selector, whether it targets the first match or all matches, or how the default 'body' maps to the whole page.

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 and resource: retrieving visible text from either the whole page or a selected element. The phrase 'visible text' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_html and get_attribute, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over related tools such as get_html, evaluate, find_by_text, or scrape_page. The usage context is only implied by the action name and description.

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