Get page content

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it states that no accessibility tree is built, that text form carries no markup overhead, and that the DOM is returned as it currently stands, which explains potential async staleness. This aligns with idempotentHint false and enriches the agent's understanding of side-effect-free read 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by efficiency context, an async warning, and explicit sibling guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotations.

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 read-only tool with three optional, well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: when to use it, the performance trade-offs, the async rendering caveat, and how it differs from siblings. There are no significant gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (format enum, file_path, max_chars). The tool description adds only marginal parameter-related context, like 'text form carries no markup overhead,' but this is more behavioral than a semantic explanation of each argument. Since schema coverage is high, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the page's visible text, or its full HTML.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming take_snapshot and query_selector as alternatives for interactive or element-specific needs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the cheapest way to read content when not needing uids, and it advises calling wait_for or wait_for_selector first on async pages. It also names alternatives, saying to use take_snapshot for interaction and query_selector for specific elements, which is a clear yes/no usage framework.

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