browser_extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether it waits for page load, what happens if the selector is missing or invalid, or if it returns first matching element or all. The phrase 'raw text content' is vague about formatting.

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?

Very concise single sentence with no wasted words. Structure could be improved by separating the parameter explanation, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return format. It does not mention that raw text might exclude hidden elements or include line breaks. With many sibling tools, some additional context about typical use cases would improve completeness.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning: optional selector parameter targets a specific element; omitting it returns full page text. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 gets 'raw text content' and specifies the scope as 'active page or a specific CSS selector'. This differentiates it from siblings like browser_get_html (which returns HTML) and browser_get_attributes (returns attributes).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like browser_scan or browser_get_html. The description implies use for raw text but does not mention exclusions or provide context for selecting among similar tools.

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