MCP Browser Text Reader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires an active browser/tab, what happens if no page is open (error/empty result), whether it returns structured data or raw text, or any performance/rate limits. For a tool with potential dependencies and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence in Chinese that states the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (interacting with browser state, 3 parameters) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., dependencies, error cases), output format, or usage context relative to siblings. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool reliably without trial and error.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., selector as CSS selector, includeHidden for hidden elements, textType with enum options). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('当前浏览器页面的文本内容' - current browser page text content), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_text' (which might be for different pages), but the 'current' qualifier provides some distinction. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_text' (from the sibling list) or other text extraction methods. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requires an active browser session), exclusions, or comparative context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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