read_browser_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation, specifies that it works across major browsers, notes it functions even when the browser is unfocused, and states the return value (URL plus page text). It could mention limitations like non-text content or missing permissions, but it is transparent for this simple tool.

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 concise, well-structured sentences: the first states the primary action and scope, and the second states the return value. There is no redundant information or padding.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the input scope, cross-browser support, unfocused-window behavior, and the exact return contents, leaving little ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking it.

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 single parameter max_chars is already fully described in the schema as 'Optional cap on returned characters', giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Read the text of the page'), the target resource ('page open in the user's visible browser window'), and even enumerates supported browsers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_selected_text or take_screen_snip by specifying it captures full page text plus URL.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the text of the currently visible browser page, even if the browser is not focused. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is understandable from the description alone.

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