read_browser_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (URL + text) and behavior when browser is unfocused. However, it does not mention potential limitations like only working on the active tab or whether invisible text (e.g., from iframes) is included.

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 efficiently convey the tool's function, target, and return value with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior for a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on what exactly constitutes 'page text' (e.g., rendered text vs. HTML) and whether it works on non-HTML content like PDFs.

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 fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states the tool reads text from a visible browser page, specifies supported browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari), and notes it works even when the browser is not focused. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_window or get_selected_text.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (when needing text from the visible browser page). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, missing an opportunity to fully guide selection.

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