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 the full burden. It states it retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active browser session, potential errors if no page is loaded, or what specific fields are returned beyond 'title, URL, etc.' For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing all return fields.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values (beyond 'title, URL, etc.'), error conditions, or dependencies on browser state. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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' meaning 'get') and resource ('当前页面的基本信息' meaning 'basic information of the current page'), specifying what information is retrieved (title, URL, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_current_page_text (which gets text content) and get_page_text (which gets text from a specific page), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 implies usage context ('当前页面' meaning 'current page'), suggesting it should be used when the browser is on a page and basic metadata is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_current_page_text or navigate_to_page, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active browser session.

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