Browser Extract Text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: 'smart main-content' extraction and pagination via offset/limit. However, it stays silent on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active tab), and how element selection is resolved, so it only partially uncovers the tool's behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the pagination note is a single efficient clause. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no description. However, the description does not clarify the critical ref parameter that selects the specific element, nor the roles of tab and session. For a tool with 5 parameters and zero schema coverage, this leaves a noticeable gap in what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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. It only explains offset/limit ('pagination for very long pages') and vaguely references element selection ('specific element') without binding it to the ref parameter. The ref, tab, and session parameters receive no semantic explanation, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Extract text') and clearly scopes the operation: whole page via smart main-content or a specific element. This differentiates it well from sibling extract tools like browser_extract_html and browser_extract_links without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives useful context for when to use it ('very long pages' with pagination) but never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives like browser_snapshot, browser_extract_html, or browser_extract_links. Usage is implied by the tool name and text-extraction purpose, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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