view_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: returns text and element refs, cost comparison to capture_image (10-30x cheaper), collapsed container display format, depth controlling indentation not visibility, and automatic downsampling based on max_tokens.

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 paragraph that is well-structured and front-loaded. Every sentence provides value. It is slightly long but necessary given the complexity of parameters and usage scenarios.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return type, usage contexts, filter differences, cost, and expansion of collapsed containers. No gaps identified.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant context beyond the schema: depth controls indentation not visibility, filter modes explained, ref for subtree, and max_tokens for downsampling. This helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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's purpose: 'The way to see what is on the page.' It specifies when to use it (after navigate/click/switch_tab, not capture_image) and what it returns (text content + stable element refs). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like capture_image, click, and navigate.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call the tool (after navigation actions, not capture_image) and how to use different filters ('interactive' for actionable elements, 'all' for paragraphs/table cells). Also explains expanding collapsed containers and mentions cost efficiency.

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